THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  ILLI^QIS 
LIBRARY 


287 


'i 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below.  A 
charge  is  made  on  all  overdue 
books. 

University  of  Illinois  Library 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/americanmethodis00neel_0 


American  Methodism 

Its  Divisions  and  Unification 


By 

Bishop  Thomas  B.  Neely 

America7t  Methodism.  Its  Division 
and  Unification,  izmo,  cloth  . net  ^1.50 

A study  of  the  divisions  which  have  taken 
place  in  American  Methodism  and  a consideration 
of  unifications  that  are  proposed  and  which  may, 
or  may  not,  be  brought  about.  The  book  is  both 
historical  and  constructive.  Dr.  Neely  knows 
the  history  of  his  church  as  few  men  know  it, 
and  the  fruit  of  this  knowledge  is  here  presented. 
He  has  ransacked  the  annals  of  Methodism  and 
brought  together  many  historical  facts,  never  be- 
fore issued  in  book  form.  An  important,  au- 
thoritative volume. 

The  Minister  in  the  Itmerant 
System.  izmo,  cloth  . . net  ;gi.oo 

“ Bishop  Neely  states  the  system  itself  briefly, 
but  the  burden  of  the  book  is  a full  discussion 
of  the  bearing  of  it  all  on  the  minister  himself. 
We  do  not  know  any  other  book  which  states 
the  whole  case  with  such  eminent  fairness.” 

— The  Continent. 


American  Methodism 

I^s  Divisions  and  Unification 


By 

BISHOP  THOMAS  B.  NEELY,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Author  of 

**The  Minister  in  the  Itinerant  System f *^The  Bishops  and  the 
Supervisional  System  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Churchy^  **The 
Governing  Conference  in  Methodism  f **The  Evolution  of  Epis- 
copacy and  Organic  Methodismy'*  **  Young  Workers  in  the 
Churchy’  '*The  Church  Lyceum f ^^Parliamentary  Practice y* 
^*The  Parliamentarian f **Juan  Wesley f **La  Predicaciony'* 
**South  America  a Mission  Fieldf  *^South  America  a Missionary 
Problem  f etc. 


New  York  Chicago  Toronto 

Fleming  H.  Revell  Company 

London  and  Edinburgh 


Copyright,  1915,  by 

FLEMING  H.  REVELL  COMPANY 


New  York:  158  Fifth  Avenue 
Chicago:  125  North  Wabash  Ave. 
Toronto:  25  Richmond  Street,  W. 
London:  21  Paternoster  Square 
Edinburgh:  100  Princes  Street 


t ScJa.  . i 


M W a- 


Preface 

The  largest  ecclesiastical  family  of  the  Prot- 
estant type  in  the  United  States  of  America 
is  the  group  of  Churches  called  Methodistic. 
Beginning  in  colonial  days,  it  has,  throughout  the 
entire  existence  of  the  nation,  been  in  touch  with  all 
the  stages  of  national  development,  and,  exerting  a 
marked  influence  upon  all  grades  of  society,  it  has  had 
a very  direct  part  in  molding  the  national  life.  While 
it  held  strategic  positions  in  the  cities,  it  ministered 
also  to  the  rural  regions,  and  its  pioneer  preachers  fol- 
lowed those  who  sought  homes  in  the  wilderness,  and, 
by  their  religious  services,  they  saved  the  frontier  from 
lapsing  into  barbarism.  It  was  also  a unifying  force, 
as  in  the  colonial  days  and  in  other  periods  of  the 
country’s  history,  its  itinerant  ministers,  like  soldiers 
under  orders,  moved  from  one  part  of  the  land  to  an- 
other binding  the  people  of  the  different  sections  to- 
gether by  a common  spiritual  bond. 

So  great  has  been  the  influence  of  Methodism  upon 
the  people  generally  that  no  one  can  thoroughly  under- 
stand the  history  of  the  United  States  who  is  not  fairly 
familiar  with  the  movements  of  Methodism  from  its 
beginning  in  this  land.  As  Wesley  had  much  to  do  in 
making  a new  England,  across  the  sea,  so  his  followers 
on  this  side  the  Atlantic  have  had  much  to  do  with 
the  making  of  the  great  American  Republic. 

What  is  more.  State  questions  were  at  the  same  time 

5 


577944 


6 


PREFACE 


Church  questions,  and  especially  when  the  issue  was 
moral  or  humanitarian.  Conditions  that  affected  the 
nation  affected  the  Church,  and  both  Church  and 
nation  had  to  grapple  with  the  same  forces,  and  the 
issues  common  to  both  Church  and  State  shook  both  to 
their  foundations,  and,  in  a number  of  instances,  vio- 
lently rent  the  ecclesiastical  fabric,  and  made  fissures 
that  have  never  yet  been  entirely  closed. 

In  view  of  this  interrelationship  between  the  country 
and  the  Church,  those  who  wish  to  comprehend  the 
history  of  the  nation  should  know  something  of  the 
history  of  American  Methodism,  as  those  of  this  eccle- 
siastical family  who  would  intelligently  know  the  his- 
tory of  their  Church  must  know  the  history  of  their 
country. 

At  one  time  the  only  Methodism  in  the  United  States 
of  America  was  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but, 
through  various  causes,  there  are  to-day  at  least  seven- 
teen Methodistic  bodies,  large  and  small,  in  this  country, 
and  nearly  all  of  them  have  sprung  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  which  continues  to  exist  with  a 
phenomenal  growth,  and  which  stiU  is  by  far  the 
largest  of  them  all. 

The  history  of  American  Methodism,  therefore,  in- 
cludes the  history  of  the  divisions  and  subdivisions 
coming  down  from  the  original  body,  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

This  book  is  a presentation  of  such  history  covering 
about  a century  and  a quarter  and  touching  some 
twenty  Methodistic  denominations. 

As  in  other  human  relations,  so  in  ecclesiasticisms, 
there  is  the  law  of  action  and  reaction.  From  a unity 
there  is  a tendency  to  disunity  and  division,  while  on 


PREFACE 


7 


the  other  hand  there  is  likely  to  come  a period  when 
the  divided  parts  will  be  attracted  to  each  other  and  tend 
to  gravitate  to  one  another  or  towards  the  main  body. 
In  other  words,  while  there  was  once  a disruptive 
force,  there  may  come  into  action  a force  that  will 
bring  the  disrupted  parts  together. 

So  a study  of  the  causes  that  produced  division  and 
diversity  will  aid  in  a consideration  of  tendencies 
towards  unification. 

This  work  is  a study  of  divisions  that  have  taken 
place  and  a consideration  of  unifications  that  are  pro- 
posed and  that  may  or  may  not  be  brought  about.  The 
book  contains  history  which  is  interesting  in  itself,  but 
which  has  an  additional  interest  because  it  proposes  to 
present  enough  of  the  history  of  the  divisions  as  to  aid 
in  an  intelligent  consideration  of  suggestions  looking 
towards  forms  of  unification. 

Thomas  B.  Neely. 


Philadelphia^  Pa, , Aug,  i,  1915, 


y 


Contents 

I.  Early  Movements  in  American  Meth- 

odism   13 

II.  Early  Withdrawals  from  the  Parent 

Body 15 

III.  A Foreign  Separation  . . . .18 

IV.  A Withdrawal  on  Questions  of  Polity  30 

V.  Slavery  a Disturbing  and  Divisive  In- 

fluence   35 

VI.  A Northern  Withdrawal  . . ‘51 

VII.  The  Southern  Withdrawal  ...  60 

VIII.  The  First  Delegate  from  the  Church 

South 71 

IX.  Events  Following  the  Formation  of 

THE  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South 87 

X.  Renewed  Activity  by  the  Methodist 

Episcopal  Church  in  the  Far  South  94 

XL  Its  Right  to  Perform  Religious  Work 

IN  THE  Farther  South  ...  99 

XII.  Results  of  the  Work  of  the  Meth- 

odist Episcopal  Church  in  the  South  127 

XIII.  Has  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 

any  Present  Duty  in  the  South  ? .137 

XIV  Methodist  Episcopal  Efforts  Towards 

Union  with  the  Church  South  . 144 

9 


10 


CONTENTS 


XV. 

Proposed  Union  Between  the  Church 
South  and  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Church  

152 

XVI. 

The  Formation  of  the  Methodist 
Church  

161 

XVII. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  Re- 
news Proffers  of  Union  with  the 
Church  South  and  Makes  Advances 
Towards  Other  Bodies  . . 

165 

XVIII. 

A New  Colored  Church 

179 

XIX. 

Consolidation  in  Canada  . 

183 

XX. 

Union  of  the  Methodist  and  the 
Methodist  Protestant  Churches  . 

187 

XXL 

Fraternal  Advances  Between  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South  

199 

XXII. 

The  Cape  May  Commission  . 

219 

XXIII. 

Fraternity  in  Pan-Methodistic  Con- 
ferences   

236 

XXIV. 

Books  on  the  Question  of  Union  Be- 
tween THE  Church  South  and  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  . 

253 

XXV. 

Fraternal  Addresses  on  Union 

267 

XXVI. 

Attempts  at  Federation  Between 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
AND  THE  Church  South  . 

287 

XXVII. 

Federation  in  Practice 

304 

XXVIII. 

A Plan  for  Union  .... 

309 

XXIX. 

Independence  and  Unification  in 
Japan  

311 

CONTENTS 


11 


XXX.  The  Federal  Council  of  the  Meth- 

odist Episcopal  Church  and  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South 321 

XXXI.  Pending  Suggestions  of  Union  . ; 328 

XXXII.  Proposed  Union  of  Colored  Meth- 
odists   335 

XXXIII.  German- American  Methodism  . -357 

XXXIV.  Is  Union  of  the  Denominations  De- 
sirable ? 378 

XXXV.  The  Difficulties  . . . .335 

XXXVI.  The  Duty  of  the  Churches  . .391 

XXX VI 1.  Statistics  of  Methodistic  Bodies  in 

1914 394 

Index 397 


I 


EAELY  MOVEMENTS  IN  AMEEICAN 
METHODISM 

The  theme  compels  a glance  at  the  past,  the 
present,  and  then  into  the  future  of  American 
Methodism.  It  implies  that  there  have  been 
divisions  in  what  was  once  a unity,  and  unity,  division, 
and  proposed  reunion  start  many  queries. 

Thus  a consideration  of  the  union  of  the  Methodisms 
raises  the  question  as  to  how  there  happened  to  be  any 
division,  how  long  the  disunion  has  lasted,  and  what 
effort,  if  any,  has  been  made  to  bring  the  divided  parts 
together,  or  into  harmonious  relations. 

Again,  if  efforts  have  been  made  in  the  interest  of 
union,  who  made  them,  how  have  the  proposals  been 
received,  and  what  has  resulted  from  them  ? 

Predetermined  limits,  however,  will  prevent  any 
extended  presentation  of  all  these  points,  important 
though  they  are,  but  at  least  an  outline  suggestion 
should  be  given. 

Wesleyanism,  or  the  Methodism  inaugurated  by 
Wesley,  began  in  England,  in  the  first  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  From  its  germinal  form  there 
was  a gradual,  though  rather  rapid  development,  and 
in  that  early  British  development  may  be  found  the 
principles  of  polity  afterwards  brought  to  greater  per- 
fection in  other  parts  of  the  world. 

Wesleyan  Methodism  came  to  the  English  colonies 
along  the  Atlantic  coast  of  North  America  about  half- 

13 


14 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


way  between  1760  and  1770.  The  generally  accepted 
date  of  its  formal  beginning  in  America  has  been  the 
year  1766,  though  some  claim  that  the  date  should  be 
earlier. 

The  organization  at  once  took  deep  root  and  spread 
throughout  the  colonies  having  its  government  centered 
in  England  and  in  the  Reverend  John  Wesley,  its 
founder.  After  the  independence  of  these  colonies  and 
the  formation  of  the  new  Republic  called  the  United 
States  of  America,  certain  changes  in  the  organization 
were  necessitated  by  the  changed  conditions  in  the 
country,  and  Wesleyan  Methodism  in  the  United  States 
was  reorganized  and  more  fully  developed. 

Thus  from  the  Wesleyan  Societies  in  the  United 
States  there  was  evolved  an  Episcopal  Church,  but,  to 
show  its  character  and  its  historic  relation,  the  quali- 
fying word  Methodist  was  prefixed  to  Episcopal,  mak- 
ing the  title  Methodist  Episcopal. 

The  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
took  place  in  the  month  of  December,  in  the  year  1784, 
in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  Maryland,  at  what  was  called 
the  Christmas  Conference,  because  of  the  season  when 
it  convened,  and  it  became  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  or  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  in  America,  both  geographical 
and  national  qualifications  meaning  the  same  thing 
then  and  subsequently,  for  America  as  then  understood 
did  not  mean  North  America,  Central  America,  or 
South  America,  but  the  portion  of  the  continent  known 
as  the  United  States  of  America,  whose  inhabitants 
then  were,  and  now  are,  known  as  Americans. 

This  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  then  the  only 
Methodist  body  in  the  United  States. 


II 


EAELY  WITHDEAWALS  FEOM  THE  PAEENT 
BODY 

WITHDEAWALS  from  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  of  bodies  more  or  less  large  be- 
gan at  an  early  date. 

The  earliest  was  towards  the  close  of  the  year  1791. 
The  leader  in  this  movement  was  the  Keverend  William 
Hammit.  Born  in  Ireland,  he  had  been  a member  of 
the  English  Wesleyan  Conference.  Later  he  was  a 
preacher  in  the  West  Indies  whence  he  came  to  the 
United  States  and  connected  himself  with  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  which,  then,  was  in  its  formative 
years.  He  preached  in  Charleston,  South  Carolina, 
New  York,  and  Baltimore,  and  returned  to  Charleston 
where  he  had  begun  his  work.  Here  he,  and  his  im- 
mediate followers  in  and  around  Charleston,  dissociated 
themselves  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and 
started  a new  body  which  they  called  the  “ Primitive 
Methodists.”  This  action  seems  to  have  been  based  on 
the  personal  convenience  of  Mr.  Hammit,  rather  than 
on  any  ecclesiastical  principle  or  conviction,  and  the 
new  body  soon  disappeared. 

In  1792,  under  the  Keverend  James  O’Kelly,  one  of 
the  powerful  leaders  of  his  time,  occurred  the  with- 
drawal of  a considerable  number  of  preachers  and  peo- 
ple over  a question  relative  to  the  method  of  making 
pastoral  appointments.  They  called  themselves  “ Ke- 

15 


16 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


publican  Methodists  ” but  later  changed  the  title  to 
“ The  Christian  Church.”  They  were  found  chiefly  in 
Virginia.  Some  historians  state  that  this  body  perished 
soon  after  its  organization,  but  to  this  day  it  persists  in 
the  locality  where  it  originated,  though  it  never  as- 
sumed the  proportions  of  a large  denomination. 

In  the  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century  certain 
bodies  of  colored  people  went  out  from  the  original 
Church,  which  was  the  Methodist  Episcopal,  and  formed 
denominations  composed  of  members  of  their  own  race. 

Thus  Peter  Spencer,^  a colored  man  living  in  IVil-- 
.mington,JiL  the  state  of  Delaware,  having  secured  or- 
ders in  1813  .became  the  leader  of  a new  body  com- 
posed of  colored  persons  who  went  out  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Its  original  chartered 
title  was  The  African  Union  Church.”  but,  after  the 
Civil  War,  it  was  called  the  Union  American  Methodkfe- 

Episcopal  Church This  colored  organization  which 

started  in  Wilmington,  Delaware,  spread  here  and 
there  and  continues  until  the  present  time  though  its 
numbers  have  never  been  very  great. 

In  1816,  Richard  Allen,  a colored  man  resident  in 
Philadelphia,  with  his  followers,  who  were  people  of 
color,  and  who  had  been  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  began  in  that  city  the  African  Methodist  Epi^ 
,copal  Church,  which  spread  far  and  wide  and  has  grown 
to  be  a very  considerable  religious  denomination. 

In  the  city  of  New  York^^^rior  to  this  period,  was  a 
colored  Church  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  New  York 
Conference,  and  the  Church  was  called  the  Zion-Chui:eh^ 
or  the  Zion  Colored  Church.  In  1817  these  colored 
people  connected  with  this  _Zion  Church  left  the  Meth- 
odist  Episcopal  Church  and  originated  a new  colored 


EAKLY  WITHDRAWALS 


17 


denomination  which  they  called  the  African  Methodist 
Episcopal  Zion  Churchy  thus  preserving  the  name  of 
the  original  local  Church.  This  also  widely  spread  and 
taking  firm  root  has  in  the  course  of  years  become  a 
large  body. 

The  more  formidable  departures  from  the  parent 
Church,  however,  may  be  said  to  have  begun  after  the 
end  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century  and 
to  have  been  completed  about  the  close  of  the  second 
quarter.  These  will  be  treated  in  their  order  and  each 
will  present  its  own  peculiarities  and  have  its  own  par- 
ticular lessons. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  all  the  withdrawing  bodies  of 
the  first  seventeen  years  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and 
also  the  withdrawal  under  James  O’Kelly,  towards  the 
close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  still  continue,  and  some 
of  them  with  a very  vigorous  existence  after  the  lapse 
of  nearly,  and  in  one  case,  more  than,  a hundred  years. 


Ill 


A FOEEIGN  SEPARATION 

The  first  separation  of  great  moment  in  the 
second  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century  re- 
lated to  the  British  province  of  Canada  to  the 
north  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  in  the  early 
days  extended  into  Canada  as  a sort  of  overflow.  Even 
in  that  time  there  was  some  degree  of  interchange  of 
population.  In  1778,  the  Emburys  and  the  Heeks,  who 
formed  the  first  church  in  New  York  City,  founded  the 
first  American  Methodist  Society  in  Canada.  In  1790, 
George  Neal,  a local  preacher  from  Pennsylvania,  who 
taught  school  in  Canada,  formed  another  society  in  that 
country.  About  the  same  time  William  Losee,  an  itin- 
erant preacher  of  the  United  States,  visited  some  friends 
in  Upper  Canada,  and  while  there  preached  some 
sermons  which  made  such  an  impression  that  the  peo- 
ple petitioned  the  New  York  Conference  for  him  as 
their  regularly  appointed  minister.  This  request  was 
granted  and  thus  a connection  was  established  between 
an  Annual  Conference  in  the  United  States  and  the 
work  in  Canada,  the  work  across  the  border  being  con- 
nected with  the  New  York  Conference,  and,  subse- 
quently, with  the  Genesee  Conference  in  the  western 
part  of  New  York  State. 

Thus  in  this  unpremeditated  way  the  work  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  extended  across  the  na- 

18 


A FOREIGN  SEPARATION 


19 


tional  boundary.  The  work  steadily  and  rapidly  spread 
and  the  relations  between  the  parts  of  the  Church  on 
both  sides  the  line  were  most  harmonious,  but  the  war 
of  1812-1814  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain,  which  involved  Canada,  naturally  produced 
unhappy  results.  The  allegiance  of  the  people  of 
Canada  to  Great  Britain  strained  their  allegiance  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  a country  which  had  been  at  war  with  them. 
British  laws  also  came  in  to  increase  the  difficulties  of 
the  situation.  Hence  there  grew  up  a desire  for  eccle- 
siastical independence.  As  Dr.  Nathan  Bangs,  in  his 
“ History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,”  says : 
“ This  desire,  however,  did  not  arise  out  of  any  dissatis- 
faction with  the  conduct  of  the  brethren  in  the  United 
States  towards  them,  but  chiefly  from  the  opposition 
evinced  by  statesmen  in  Upper  Canada  to  their  being 
subject  to  the  control  of  a foreign  ecclesiastical  head, 
over  which  the  civil  authorities  of  Canada  could  exer- 
cise no  jurisdiction ; and  as  most  of  the  preachers  in 
Canada  were  fo;-merly  from  the  United  States,  and  all 
of  them  subject  to  an  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  in  an- 
other nation,  it  was  contended  by  the  Canadian  author- 
ities that  they  had  no  sufficient  guarantee  for  their 
allegiance  to  the  crown  of  Great  Britain,  and  to  the 
civil  regulations  of  Canada ; and  hence  the  Methodist 
ministers  in  Canada  had  suffered  civil  disabilities,  and 
had  not  been  allowed  to  celebrate  the  rites  of  matri- 
mony, not  even  for  their  own  members.” 

One  result  of  this  state  of  affairs  was  a greatly  re- 
duced membership  and  an  increase  of  difficulties  in  the 
work. 

In  view  of  these  conditions  preachers  in  Canada  pe- 


20 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


titioned  the  General  Conference  of  1824  to  set  off  the 
upper  province  as  an  independent  Conference,  with  the 
privilege  of  electing  its  own  bishop  to  reside  among 
its  ministers  and  members  and  to  superintend  its  affairs. 
In  response,  this  General  Conference,  though  not  agree- 
ing to  all  that  was  asked,  did  erect  Upper  Canada  into 
an  Annual  Conference,  but  retained  it  as  before  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and 
the  superintendency  of  its  bishops. 

This,  however,  did  not  satisfy  the  Canadians,  and,  in 
1828,  the  Conference  of  Canada  sent  a Memorial  to  the 
General  Conference  of  that  year  asking  that  the 
Canada  Conference  be  made  an  independent  Church. 
The  Canadian  Conference  had  also  in  1824  memorial- 
ized the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  United  States  to 
recommend  this  to  the  General  Conference  of  1828. 

The  matter  came  before  that  body  and  there  fol- 
lowed a discussion  as  to  the  right  and  power  of  the 
General  Conference  to  grant  ecclesiastical  independence 
to  the  Conference  in  Upper  Canada. 

This  was  opposed  by  some  on  constitutional  grounds. 
Dr.  Nathan  Bangs,  one  of  the  leaders  in  the  Church  at 
that  time,  says  in  his  History  that  it  was  held  that  the 
General  Conference  “ had  no  constitutional  right  to  set 
off  the  brethren  in  Upper  Canada  as  an  independent 
body,  because  the  terms  of  the  compact  by  which  we 
existed  as  a General  Conference  made  it  obligatory  on 
us,  as  a delegated  body,  to  preserve  the  union  entire, 
and  not  to  break  up  the  Church  into  separate  fragments. 
Hence,  to  grant  the  prayer  of  the  memorialists,  by  a 
solemn  act  of  legislation,  would  be  giving  sanction  to  a 
principle,  and  setting  a precedent  for  future  General 
Conferences  of  a dangerous  character — of  such  a char- 


A FOREIGN  SEPARATION 


21 


acter  as  might  tend  ultimately  to  the  dissolution  of  the 
ecclesiastical  body,  which  would  be,  in  fact  and  form, 
contravening  the  very  object  for  which  we  were  con- 
stituted a delegated  conference,  this  object  being  a 
'preservation^  and  not  a destruction  or  dissolution  of  the 
union.^'* 

Unless  some  other  principle  qualified  the  relationship 
of  the  Canadian  Conference  this  view  must  have  stood 
as  final  for  the  General  Conference  had  no  right  to  des- 
troy the  Church  in  whole  or  in  part. 

At  this  juncture,  however,  John  Emory,  one  of  the 
legal  lights  of  the  General  Conference,  called  attention 
to,  and  introduced  a new  principle,  or  rather  one  that 
had  been  overlooked.  As  Doctor  Bangs  says  : “ It  was 
suggested  by  a very  intelligent  member  of  the  General 
Conference,  the  late  Bishop  Emory,  that  the  preachers 
who  went  to  Canada  from  the  United  States  went  in 
the  first  instance  as  missionaries,  and  that  ever  after- 
wards, whenever  additional  help  was  needed.  Bishop 
Asbury  and  his  successors  asked  for  volunteers^  not 
claiming  the  right  to  send  them,  in  the  same  authorita- 
tive manner  in  which  they  were  sent  to  the  different 
parts  of  the  United  States  and  territories  ; hence  it  fol- 
lowed that  the  compact  between  us  and  our  brethren  in 
Canada  was  altogether  of  a voluntary  character — 'we 
had  offered  them  our  services,  and  they  had  accepted 
them — and  therefore,  as  the  time  had  arrived  when 
they  were  no  longer  willing  to  receive  or  accept  of  our 
labors  and  superintendence,  they  had  a perfect  right  to 
request  us  to  withdraw  our  services,  and  we  the  same 
right  to  withhold  them.” 

‘‘  This,”  continues  Doctor  Bangs,  presented  the  sub- 
ject in  a new  and  very  clear  light,  and  it  seemed  per- 


22 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


fectlj  compatible  with  our  powers  as  a delegated  con- 
ference, and  their  privileges  as  a part  of  the  same  body, 
thus  connected  by  a voluntary  and  conditional  compact, 
either  expressed  or  implied,  to  dissolve  the  connection 
subsisting  between  us,  without  any  dereliction  of  duty 
or  forfeiture  of  privilege  on  either  part.” 

Convinced  that  the  General  Conference  had  a right 
to  grant  ecclesiastical  independence  to  its  preachers  and 
people  in  Canada,  the  General  Conference  proceeded 
formally  to  grant  the  desired  independence.  This  it 
did  by  adopting  the  following : 

“ Whereas^  The  Canada  Annual  Conference,  situated 
in  the  province  of  Upper  Canada,  under  a foreign 
government,  have,  in  their  memorial,  presented  to  this 
Conference  the  difficulties  under  which  they  labor  in 
consequence  of  their  union  with  a foreign  ecclesiastical 
government,  and  setting  forth  their  desire  to  be  set 
off  as  a separate  Church  establishment ; and, 

“ Whereas^  This  General  Conference  disclaims  all  right 
to  exercise  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  under  such  circum- 
stances except  by  mutual  agreement ; therefore, 

“ Resolved^  by  the  delegates  of  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences in  General  Conference  assembled : 1.  That  the 
compact  existing  between  the  Canada  Annual  Confer- 
ence and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  be,  and  hereby  is,  dissolved  by  mutual  consent, 
and  that  they  are  at  liberty  to  form  themselves  into  a 
separate  Church  establishment,”  etc. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  its  action  the  General 
Conference  enunciates  the  principle  that  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  can  deal 
differently  with  territory  under  a foreign  government 
from  territory  within  the  United  States  of  America. 


A FOREIGN  SEPARATION 


23 


This  is  distinctly  implied  and  expressed  in  the  paper 
which  was  adopted. 

There  is  the  distinct  statement  that  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  question  is  not  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  Canada,  but  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  United  States,  and  from  it  is 
distinguished  the  Canada  Annual  Conference,  and  for 
it  to  be  under  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  was  to  be  under  “ a foreign  ecclesiastical 
government.”  On  the  other  hand  the  Conference  in 
Canada  was  “ under  a foreign  government.” 

Being  “ under  a foreign  government  ” it  was  mis- 
sionary, and,  perhaps,  temporary,  work  outside  of  the 
naturally  legitimate  bounds  and  jurisdiction  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in,  and  of,  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  with  a different  bond  from  the 
Conferences  and  fields  of  action  within  the  United 
States.  Because  the  Conference  in  Canada  was  “ un- 
der a foreign  government,”  the  “ Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America”  had  no 
“right  to  exercise  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction”  over  it 
“ except  by  mutual  agreement,”  and  either  side  could 
vacate  the  “ compact  ” or  tacit  agreement  which  was, 
as  Doctor  Bangs  says,  “ a voluntary  or  conditional  com- 
pact,” and  also  temporary. 

Hence,  because  Canada  was  “ under  a foreign  gov- 
ernment ” and  the  Canada  Annual  Conference  desired 
“ to  be  set  off  as  a separate  Church  establishment,”  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  General  Conference  disclaimed 
“all  right  to  exercise  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,”  de- 
clared the  compact  “ dissolved  ” and  that  those  in  the 
Canadian  Conference  were  “ at  liberty  to  form  theni^ 
selves  into  a separate  Church  establishment.” 


24 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Having  disclaimed  “ all  right  to  exercise  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction  under  such  circumstances  except  by  mutual 
agreement,’’  that  is  to  say,  “ to  exercise  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction  over  work  in  territory  ” under  “ foreign 
government  ” or  not  in  a territory  within  or  under  the 
United  States  of  America,  the  General  Conference  ac- 
knowledged and  established  the  principle  that  the 
status  of  work  under  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  a foreign  country  or  within  the  sphere  of  a foreign 
government  is  different  from  its  work  in  its  home  land 
which  is  the  United  States  of  America.  The  Church 
is  the  “Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  ” though  it  may  have  mission  fields 
in  foreign  countries.  It  is  in,  and  of,  the  United  States 
but  it  does  not  have  the  same  grip  and  control  in  terri- 
tory under  a foreign  political  government  as  it  does  in 
the  United  States.  In  the  foreign  territory  it  may 
have  its  more  or  less  temporary  control  by  tolerance, 
or,  using  the  language  of  the  action  in  relation  to 
Canada,  “ by  mutual  agreement,”  and,  as  in  the  case  of 
Canada,  the  relation  may  be  severed  “ by  mutual  agree- 
ment ” or  by  one  side  or  the  other.  So  a Conference 
in  a foreign  land  might  “ be  set  off  as  a separate  Church 
establishment  ” or  form  itself  “ into  a separate  Church 
establishment.”  In  the  United  States  of  America, 
however,  the  case  would  be  very  different.  Here  the 
“ Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  ” could  and  must  enforce  its  authority  over  its 
own  work.  This  territory  cannot  be  withdrawn  from 
it  and  its  General  Conference  cannot  set  off  territory 
in  the  United  States,  for  the  General  Conference  can- 
not destroy  the  Church  in  whole  or  in  part. 

So  Dr.  Nathan  Bangs  observes  in  his  History, 


A FOREIGN  SEPARATION 


25 


copyrighted  in  1840  : “ It  will  be  perceived,  therefore, 
that  this  mutual  agreement  to  dissolve  the  connection 
heretofore  subsisting  between  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  and  the  Canada  Confer- 
ence cannot,  with  justice,  be  pleaded  for  setting  off  any 
one  Conference  or  any  number  of  Annual  Conferences 
in  the  United  States,  as  their  relations  to  each  other  and 
to  the  General  Conference  are  quite  dissimilar  to  that 
which  bound  the  Canada  Conference  to  us.  The  Con- 
ferences in  the  United  States  are  all  bound  together 
by  one  sacred  compact,  and  the  severing  any  one  from 
the  main  body  would  partake  of  the  same  suicidal  char- 
acter as  to  sever  a sound  limb  from  the  body.  The 
General  Conference  has  no  right,  no  authority,  thus  ‘ to 
scatter,  tear,  and  slay  ’ the  body  which  they  are  sol- 
emnly bound  to  keep  together,  to  nourish,  to  protect, 
and  to  preserve  in  one  harmonious  whole. 

“ If  an  Annual  Conference  declare  itself  independent, 
out  of  the  pale  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  it 
is  its  own  act  exclusively,  and  therefore  the  responsi- 
bility rests  upon  itself  alone,  for  which  the  General 
Conference  cannot  be  held  accountable,  because  it  was 
not  a participant  in  the  separation.  I do  not  say  that  the 
General  Conference  may  not  disown  an  Annual  Con- 
ference, should  it  become  corrupt  in  doctrine,  in  moral 
discipline,  or  in  religious  practice.  Should,  for  in- 
stance, an  Annual  Conference,  by  an  act  of  the  major- 
ity of  its  members,  abjure  any  of  our  essential  doctrines, 
such  as  the  atonement  of  Christ,  or  justification  by 
faith,  or  should  renounce  the  sacrament  of  baptism  or 
the  Lord’s  supper,  or  strike  from  its  moral  code  any  of 
the  precepts  of  morality  recognized  in  our  general  rules, 
it  might  become  the  duty  of  the  General  Conference  to 


26 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


interpose  its  high  authority,  and  cut  off  or  at  least  to 
withdraw  its  fellowship  from  the  offending  members. 
Yet  such  an  act  of  excision,  or  of  disnaturalization,  if  I 
may  so  call  it,  could  be  justified  only  as  a dernier  re- 
sort, when  all  other  means  had  failed  to  reclaim  the 
delinquents  from  their  wanderings — just  as  the  sur- 
geon’s knife  is  to  be  withheld  until  mortification  en- 
dangers the  life  of  the  patient,  when  death  or  amputa- 
tion becomes  the  sole  alternative.  How  else  can  the . 
Church  be  preserved — supposing  such  a case  of  delin- 
quency to  exist — from  a general  putrefaction  ? For  if 
a majority  of  an  Annual  Conference  become  heterodox 
in  doctrine,  or  morally  corrupt  in  practice,  the  minority 
cannot  control  them,  cannot  call  them  to  an  account, 
condemn,  and  expel  them.  And  in  this  case,  must  the 
majority  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  perhaps  also  a 
respectable  minority  of  that  very  Annual  Conference, 
be  compelled  to  hold  these  apostates  from  the  truth  and 
righteousness  in  the  bosom  of  their  fellowship,  to  treat 
them  in  all  respects  as  brethren  beloved,  and  publicly 
to  recognize  them  as  such  in  their  public  and  author- 
ized documents  ? This  would  be  a hard  case  indeed  ! 
an  alternative  to  which  no  ecclesiastical  body  should 
be  compelled  to  submit. 

“ These  remarks  are  made  to  prevent  any  misconcep- 
tion respecting  the  principle  on  which  the  above  con- 
nection was  dissolved,  and  to  .show  that  it  forms  no 
precedent  for  a dissolution  of  the  connection  now  sub- 
sisting between  the  Annual  and  General  Conferences  in 
the  United  States.  Analogical  arguments,  to  be  con- 
clusive, must  be  drawn  from  analogous  facts  or  circum- 
stances, and  not  from  contrast,  or  opposing  facts  or 
circumstances.  And  the  relation  subsisting  between 


A FOREIGN  SEPARATION 


27 


the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  United  States  to  each 
other,  and  between  them  and  the  General  Conference, 
stands  in  contrast  with  the  relation  which  did  subsist 
between  the  Canada  and  the  General  Conference ; and 
therefore  no  analogical  argument  can  be  drawn  from 
the  mutual  agreement  by  which  this  relation  was  dis- 
solved in  favor  of  dissolving  the  connection  now  sub- 
sisting between  the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  United 
States,  by  a solemn  act  of  legislation  on  the  part  of  the 
General  Conference,  except  for  the  reasons  above  as- 
signed ; and  those  reasons,  let  it  be  remembered,  make 
the  contrast  still  greater  between  the  two  acts,  and 
justify  the  difference  of  the  procedure ; for  the  dissolu- 
tion of  the  compact  between  us  and  the  Canada  breth- 
ren [was]  from  the  jurisdiction  only,  Christian  fellow- 
ship still  subsisting — while  the  supposed  act  of  excision 
would  be  a withdrawing  of  Christian  fellowship  from 
the  offending  members.” 

The  general  principles  enunciated  long  years  ago  by 
Doctor  Bangs  were,  and  are,  correct,  but  perhaps  they 
should  have  the  qualification  of  a few  additional  re- 
marks. This  is  particularly  needed  in  relation  to  his 
illustration  of  the  excision  or  expulsion  of  an  Annual 
Conference  by  the  General  Conference. 

An  Annual  Conference  involves  not  merely  members 
but  also  territory,  for  it  has  territorial  boundaries. 
The  essential  principle  in  the  facts  and  statements 
presented  in  and  illustrated  by  the  granting  of  inde- 
pendence to  the  Canada  Conference  was  that  the  work 
and  the  territory  in  a foreign  country  could  be  set  off 
because  it  was  foreign  but  that  Conference  territory  in 
the  United  States  of  America  could  not  be  set  off  be- 
cause it  was  not  foreign  but  in  the  home  territory  of  thq 


28 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


“ Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America.” 

Then  in  dealing  with  ministers  in  an  Annual  Confer- 
ence who  would  “ abjure  any  of  our  essential  doctrines,” 
“ or  strike  from  its  moral  code  any  of  the  precepts  of 
morality  recognized  in  our  general  rules,”  the  way  to 
deal  with  “ these  apostates  from  truth  and  righteous- 
ness ” would  be  to  deal  with  them  individually,  and, 
when  they  were  duly  expelled,  those  who  remained 
would  be  the  Annual  Conference  and  be  the  custodians 
of  the  property  as  far  as  an  Annual  Conference  could 
be  the  custodian  of  such  property,  and  if  those  who 
were  expelled  or  otherwise  ceased  to  be  members  of  the 
Annual  Conference,  undertook  to  carry  off,  or  take,  or 
hold  possession  of  property  deeded  and  dedicated  for 
the  use  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  it  would  be 
the  right  and  duty  of  the  Church  through  its  regularly 
constitued  denominational  authorities,  or  through  the 
individuals  who  remained  true  to  the  doctrines,  the 
polity,  and  the  practices,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  to  claim  and  reclaim  said  property,  if  neces- 
sary, by  legal  proceedings  in  the  courts  of  the  land. 

The  individuals  might  be  expelled  or  excluded,  or  go 
out  voluntarily,  but  the  territory  and  the  property  of 
the  Annual  Conference  would  remain  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  and  the  Conference,  though  with  re- 
duced numbers,  could  continue  its  existence,  or  a re- 
newed Conference  could  be  created. 

In  case  the  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Confer- 
ence became  “ apostate  ” and  would  not  conduct  the 
Conference  according  to  the  law  of  the  denomination 
and  refuse  to  allow  the  faithful  minority  its  rights,  any 
individual  member  of  the  Conference  could  appeal  to 


A FOREIGN  SEPARATION 


29 


the  General  Conference,  and  if  all  the  ministers  in  the 
Conference  had  proven  “ apostate  ” any  minister  or 
member  of  the  Church  could  appeal  to  the  General 
Conference,  or  the  General  Conference  itself  could  take 
cognizance,  or  some  one  could  take  the  matter  directly 
into  the  civil  courts. 

The  one  great  principle  established  by  the  Canada 
case  is  that  the  status  of  the  work  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  a foreign  country  is  dijBferent  from 
that  in  the  home  land,  and,  while  the  General  Confer- 
ence may  set  off,  or  make  independent  or  allow  to  be 
independent  work  in  a foreign  land,  it  cannot  set  off,  or 
sever  from  itself  any  section,  territory,  or  Conference  in 
the  United  States  of  America. 

It  was  on  this  basis  that  the  General  Conference  in 
1828  granted  the  independence  of  its  Conference  in 
Canada  which  was  a foreign  country. 


rv 


A WITHDEAWAL  ON  QUESTIONS  OF  POLITY 

TOWAKDS  the  end  of  the  first  quarter  of  the 
nineteenth  century  there  developed  in  some 
sections,  with  the  city  of  Baltimore  as  a center, 
a dissatisfaction  with  certain  features  of  the  economy 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  or  with  the  practi- 
cal workings  of  its  polity. 

The  Annual  Conferences  were  composed  of  what 
were  called  the  travelling  or  itinerant  preachers  and 
ministers  of  this  class  were  the  members  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference.  The  other  class  of  preachers  who 
were  members  of  the  local  churches  and  were  called 
local  preachers  could  not  be  members  of  the  General 
Conference,  and  some  of  them  wished  their  class  of 
local  preachers  to  be  represented  as  such  in  that  body. 

Then  members  of  the  general  laity  who  were  not 
local  preachers  declared  that  they  were  dissatisfied  with 
certain  conditions  in  the  ecclesiastical  government  and 
wanted  to  break  down  centralization  and  secure  a 
greater  diffusion  of  power  among  themselves,  by  hav- 
ing laymen  elected  as  delegates  and  admitted  as  mem- 
bers of  the  General  Conference. 

These  agitators  became  known  as  “reformers.’’ 
They  spoke  of  themselves  as  such  and  by  others  were 
referred  to  as  the  reformers. 

After  an  agitation  of  some  years  the  agitators  grew 
to  be  a considerable  number  and  counted  not  only  lay 

30 


WITHDRAWAL  ON  POLITY 


31 


supporters  but  also  ministerial  participants  among  whom 
were  some  very  prominent  preachers. 

In  1824  a convention  of  “ reformers  ” was  held  in 
Baltimore. 

This  convention  decided  to  organize  what  were 
termed  Union  Societies  in  different  parts  of  the  coun- 
try and  also  to  publish  a periodical  called  “The 
Mutual  Rights  of  the  Ministers  and  Members  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.” 

Persisting  in  their  agitation,  charges  were  made 
against  some  of  the  agitators  and,  in  some  instances, 
the  parties  were  tried  and  expelled.  Possibly  if  less  of 
this  had  been  done  the  results  would  have  been  better. 

In  182Y,  the  Reverend  Dennis  B.  Dorsey,  a member 
of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  who  had  identified  him- 
self with  the  “ Reformers,”  was  arraigned  before  his 
Conference  for  commending  and  circulating  the  publi- 
cation called  the  “ Mutual  Rights.”  Dr.  Nathan 
Bangs,  in  his  “ History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,”  states  that  “ during  the  course  of  his  trial  he 
avowed  such  principles,  and  made  such  declarations  re- 
specting his  independent  rights  as  could  not  be  ap- 
proved by  the  Conference ; and  they  therefore  re- 
quested, as  the  mildest  punishment  they  could  inflict, 
the  bishop  leave  him  without  an  appointment  for  one 
year.  From  this  decision  he  took  an  appeal  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference ; but  instead  of  waiting  patiently  until 
this  ultimate  decision  could  be  had,  he  loudly  censured 
the  acts  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  in  reference  to  his 
case,  through  the  columns  of  ‘ Mutual  Rights,’  thus  ap- 
pealing from  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  Church 
to  the  popular  voice,  invoking  from  this  very  equivocal 
tribunal  a decision  in  his  favor.  All  this  had  a tendency 


32 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


to  widen  the  breach,  and  to  make  a reconciliation  the 
more  hopeless.” 

Shortly  after  that,  eleven  local  preachers  of  the  city 
of  Baltimore,  as  Dr.  James  Porter,  in  his  “ History  of 
Methodism,”  puts  it : “ who  were  chief  actors  in  the 
drama,  and  twenty-five  lay  members  of  the  more  bellig- 
erent kind,  were  cited  to  trial,  and  either  expelled  or 
suspended,”  and  they  took  an  appeal. 

In  1828,  the  Reverend  Dennis  B.  Dorsey,  who  re- 
fused to  pledge  himself  to  desist  from  spreading  what 
the  Conference  regarded  as  incendiary  publications,  was 
excluded  from  the  Church. 

In  November,  1827,  certain  expelled  members  and 
their  sympathizers  met  in  Baltimore,  and  formed  a so- 
ciety called  the  “ Associate  Methodist  Reformers,” 
and,  in  the  same  year,  a convention  of  “ Reformers  ” 
prepared  a memorial  to  be  presented  to  the  next  Gen- 
eral Conference,  which  was  to  meet  in  1828,  praying 
for  the  admission  of  laymen,  as  lay -delegates,  into  the 
General  Conferences  of  the  Church. 

This  memorial  and  various  petitions  were  received  by 
the  General  Conference  of  1828.  To  it  also  came  an 
appeal  from  Dennis  B.  Dorsey.  In  his  case  the  deci- 
sion of  the  Baltimore  Conference  was  affirmed  as  was 
also  the  action  of  the  same  Conference  in  the  case  of 
William  C.  Pool,  expelling  him  on  similar  grounds,  but 
a paper  was  presented  by  John  Emory  in  which  it  was 
said : 

“ That  no  act  or  decision  of  this  General  Conference 
is  intended,  or  can  justly  be  so  construed,  as  to  deny  to 
any  minister  or  member  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  any  liberty  of  speech  or  of  the  press  which  shall 
be  consistent  with  our  moral  obligations  as  Christians, 


WITHDRAWAL  ON  POLITY 


33 


and.  with  our  own  existing  rules  and  associate  obliga- 
tions as  Methodists  and  Methodist  ministers  ; and  that 
any  representation  or  construction  to  the  contrary  will, 
in  our  judgment,  be  a violation  of  truth  and  righteous- 
ness.” 

The  paper  also  provided  that  expelled  persons  be- 
cause of  such  actions  as  in  the  cases  cited  might  be  re- 
stored to  their  former  standing,  provided  that  within 
six  months  the  individuals  “ shall  make  concessions  in 
writing,  if  required,  with  regard  to  their  past  proceed- 
ings, and  give  such  assurances  with  regard  to  their 
future  course  in  relation  to  the  premises  as  shall  be 
satisfactory  to  such  minister  or  preacher,  and  also  to 
such  quarterly  meeting  Conference.” 

In  regard  to  the  memorial  on  the  question  of  lay- 
delegation  a report  presented  by  Dr.  John  Emory,  but 
said  to  have  been  prepared  by  Thomas  E.  Bond,  M.  D., 
refusing  to  grant  lay-delegation  was  adopted  unani- 
mously by  the  Conference,  and  that  was  followed  by 
the  almost  unanimous  adoption  of  another  paper  which 
indulged  the  hope  “ that  a mutual  desire  may  exist  for 
conciliation  and  peace,”  advised  that  no  further  proceed- 
ings be  had  ‘‘  on  account  of  any  past  agency  or  concern 
in  relation  to  the  above-named  periodical,  or  in  relation 
to  any  Union  Society  as  above  mentioned,”  and  propos- 
ing a plan  for  the  easy  restoration  of  any  who  had  been 
expelled  for  specified  participation  in  a certain  form  of 
agitation. 

But  these  concessions  were  unavailing.  It  was  too 
late.  The  tide  had  arisen  and  swept  on. 

After  an  agitation  continued  through  a number  of 
years,  with  an  intense  discussion  on  the  issue  of  lay- 
delegation  in  the  General  Conference  and  also  involv- 


34 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


ing  the  question  of  the  episcopacy,  a number  of  minis- 
terial and  lay  agitators  and  their  followers  left  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  in  November,  1830,  a 
General  Convention  assembled  in  Baltimore  to  frame  a 
Constitution  and  a Book  of  Discipline  for  a new  de- 
nomination and  this  new  denomination  they  styled  the 
Methodist  Protestant  Church. 

This  new  denomination  was  to  have  lay  as  well  as 
ministerial  delegates  in  its  General  Conference. 

In  addition  the  name  bishop  was  dropped  and  the 
chief  executive  officer  called  the  President. 

The  first  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Prot- 
estant Church  convened  in  Georgetown,  District  of 
Columbia,  on  the  6th  of  May,  1834. 

It  was  proposed  that  its  General  Conference  meet 
once  in  seven  years,  but  it  was  finally  decided  to  have 
it  meet  at  intervals  of  four  years,  following  the  example 
of  the  Mother  Church  with  its  quadrennial  General 
Conferences. 


T 


SLAVEEY  A DISTUEBING  AND  DIVISIVE 
INFLUENCE 

IN  the  nation  slavery  became  an  issue  between  cer- 
tain sections  .at  a period  close  to  the  beginning  of 
the  new  republic. 

Eliminated  at  an  early  day  from  the  Northern  States, 
it  gradually  and  steadily  strengthened  in  the  Southern 
States  as  slave  labor  became  more  profitable. 

The  climate  and  the  crops  were  favorable  to  the 
labor  of  the  colored  people  and,  therefore,  though  some 
leaders  in  the  South  wished  the  emancipation  of  the 
human  beings  who  were  held  in  servitude,  the  need  of 
labor,  and  the  commercial  gain  through  that  labor, 
strengthened  the  demand  for  human  slavery  in  that 
section  of  the  country. 

The  general  opinion  in  the  North  was  against  this 
“ peculiar  institution,”  as  it  was  termed,  and,  as  the 
years  passed,  the  Northern  opinion  became  as  pro- 
nounced against  the  institution  as  in  the  South  it  was 
favorable,  though  the  people  had  different  views  as  to 
the  method  of  dealing  with  it. 

With  very  many,  and  a vast  number  that  continued 
to  grow,  it  was  not  a matter  of  superficial  prejudice  but 
a profound  conviction  which  became  a matter  of  con- 
science that  took  possession  of  men’s  thoughts  and 
swayed  their  souls  and  impelled  them  to  speak,  and 
write,  and  work  against  the  slavery  of  human  beings 
no  matter  what  might  be  the  color  of  their  skin. 

35 


36 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


On  the  other  hand  many  in  the  South  defended  this 
slavery  not  only  because  it  was  financially  profitable 
but  also  on  other  grounds.  Some  held  that  it  was 
better  for  the  colored  people  and  even  maintained  that 
the  institution  had  divine  sanction.  So  the  controlling 
people  in  the  South,  generally  speaking,  supported 
slavery  and  made  efforts  for  its  extension. 

These  counter  sentiments  asserted  themselves  in  an 
increasing  intensity,  the  one  in  the  North  and  the  other 
in  the  South,  so  that  one  became  the  practical  exponent 
of  the  North  and  the  other  of  the  South,  to  such  an  ex- 
tent that  the  tendency  was  to  array  the  two  sections 
against  each  other. 

With  this  condition  it  was  inevitable  that  the  slavery 
question  would  become  a political  issue  and  slavery 
would  mark  a dividing  line,  so  that  it  made  two 
diametrically  opposed  divisions  in  the  nation,  the  one 
pro-slave,  the  other  anti-slave. 

That  is  what  resulted,  so  that,  generally,  and  prac- 
tically, speaking,  there  were  the  Antislavery  North, 
and  the  Proslavery  South,  and  the  North  became  the 
synonym  of  the  Antislavery  sentiment,  and  the  South 
an  equivalent  word  for  the  Proslavery  view.  Thus 
there  were  sectional  divisions  on  this  subject  that 
made  an  actual,  though  not  a legal  division,  within  the 
nation. 

In  the  territory  on  the  southern  edge  of  the  North, 
and  the  northern  edge  of  the  South,  there  was  a fringe 
of  territory  commonly  called  the  “ Border,”  where  there 
were  mixed  sentiments  on  the  question  of  slavery,  per- 
haps more  mixed  and  more  pronounced  than  in  most 
other  parts  of  the  country. 

The  slave  controversy,  however,  was  more  than  a 


SLAVERY  A DIVISIVE  INFLUENCE  37 


political  question  which  tended  to  divide  the  citizens 
into  political  parties,  for  the  disturbing  and  divisive 
influence  of  slavery  entered  into  the  Churches  and 
tended  to  divide  the  religious  denominations. 

It  was  maintained  that  slavery  was  a moral  and  re- 
ligious question  and  a growing  number  emphatically 
declared  that  the  Church  should  stand  not  for  but 
against  slavery,  and  that  Christians  should  not  hold  or 
favor  the  holding  of  human  beings  in  such  servitude. 

So  the  question  of  human  slavery  developed  discus- 
sions and  differences  which  increased  in  intensity  in 
the  Church  as  well  as  in  the  nation.  Clashes  between 
those  of  opposite  opinions  became  more  and  more  fre- 
quent in  the  regularly  recurring  sessions  of  the  superior 
legislative  and  executive  bodies  of  the  several  religious 
denominations  until  there  were  open  divisions  in  senti- 
ment, and  divisions  in  the  ecclesiastical  relations  of  the 
opposing  parties  became  inevitable. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  practically  began 
with  the  birth  of  the  United  States  of  America  and 
spread  over  the  colonies  and  expanded  with  the  growth 
of  the  nation  until  it  covered  the  entire  country. 

Slavery  was  in  the  land  before  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  was  founded,  and,  so,  as  the  Church  con- 
tinued and  spread,  it  was  susceptible  in  a degree  to  the 
force  of  the  diverse  and  changing  sentiments  of  the 
country  on  the  slave  issue. 

The  controversy  was  in  the  North,  which  was  be- 
coming more  and  more  intense  in  its  opposition  to 
slavery,  and  it  was  in  the  South,  which  was  becoming 
more  and  more  proslave,  while  it  covered  the  middle 
section,  where  the  two  forces  met  in  mental,  political, 
and,  sometimes,  physical  conflict. 


38 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Hence  the  commotion  was  felt  throughout  the  whole 
country  and  through  the  march  of  the  generations,  and 
naturally  the  Church  felt  the  force  of  the  struggle  of 
antagonistic  sentiments  in  the  movement  which  has 
been  styled  the  “ irrepressible  conflict.” 

From  its  very  beginning  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  was  pronounced  in  its  opposition  to  human 
slavery  and  the  barter  in  human  beings,  which  the 
founder  of  Methodism  had  denounced  as  ‘‘  That  ex- 
ecrable sum  of  all  villainies,  commonly  called  the  Slave 
Trade,”  and  its  law  always  declared  its  opposition  in 
terms  of  emphatic  denunciation. 

To  show  the  attitude  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  from  the  earliest  times  a few  of  its  laws  may 
be  cited.  Thus  in  the  eighties  of  the  eighteenth 
century  one  of  its  General  Rules  prohibited  ‘‘  The 
buying  or  selling  the  bodies  and  souls  of  men,  women 
or  children,  with  an  intention  to  enslave  them.”  About 
the  same  time  the  law  declared  “ that  slavery  is  con- 
trary to  the  laws  of  God,  man,  and  nature  and  hurtful 
to  society.”  It  declared  that,  after  warning,  those  who 
bought  and  sold  slaves  should  be  expelled.  In  1784 
local  preachers  who  held  and  would  not  emancipate 
their  slaves  were  to  be  tried  another  year  in  Virginia, 
but  suspended  at  once  in  Maryland,  Delaware,  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  New  Jersey,  and  Travelling  Preachers  who 
possessed  slaves  and  refused  to  manumit  them  where 
the  law  permitted  were  to  be  employed  no  more.  In 
the  same  year  the  Conference  pronounced  against 
slavery  ‘‘as  contrary  to  the  golden  law  of  God,  on 
which  hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets,  and  the  un- 
alienable rights  of  mankind,  as  well  as  every  prin- 
ciple of  the  Revolution,  to  hold  in  the  deepest  de- 


SLAVERY  A DIVISIVE  INFLUENCE  39 


basement,  in  a more  abject  slavery  than  is  perhaps 
found  in  any  part  of  the  world  except  America,  so 
many  souls  that  are  all  capable  of  the  image  of 
God,”  and  devised  measures  “ to  extirpate  this  abomina- 
tion ” from  those  connected  with  the  Church. 

After  a time,  however,  while  not  changing  its 
antagonism,  it  made  some  concessions  to  its  members 
who  were  supposed  to  be  entangled  by  peculiar  circum- 
stances, but  the  denomination  never  yielded  its  righteous 
detestation  of  what  it  regarded  an  iniquitous  institution 
even  where  it  was  protected  by  state  law. 

While  for  a time  conservative  in  its  actions  the  de- 
mand that  there  should  be  no  tolerance  of  human 
slavery  anywhere  and  under  any  condition  became 
stronger  and  stronger  from  the  Northern  portion  of 
the  Church,  and  many  were  not  only  on  the  anti- 
slavery side,  but  were  pronounced  abolitionists  insisting 
upon  the  destruction  of  slavery  in  some  way  and  that 
without  delay.  This  meant  agitation  which  not  only 
affected  local  Churches  and  Annual  Conferences  but 
found  its  way  into  General  Conference  after  General 
Conference. 

Thus  the  question  of  slavery  came  up  in  the  General 
Conferences  of  1796,  of  1800,  of  1804,  of  1808,  of  1816, 
and  of  1824.  Then  the  question  of  lay  delegation 
absorbed  attention  for  a while,  but  in  1836  the  question 
of  slavery  became  a leading  topic  and  in  the  General 
Conference  of  1840  it  became  the  topic  of  chief  interest, 
and  so  it  went  on  until  it  culminated  in  1844. 

The  Methodist  Protestant  Church  was  mainly  in  the 
border-land  where  the  slave  and  antislave  sentiments 
met,  though  its  Conferences  also  spread  to  the  North 
and  West  and  into  the  remoter  South.  Organized  in 


40 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


1830  it  was  not  long  before  it  began  to  feel  the  force 
of  the  antagonistic  elements.  Within  a few  years  the 
Methodist  Protestant  Church  found  how  difficult  it 
was  to  preserve  harmony  within  itself  because  of  the 
growing  proslavery  and  antislavery  sentiments  in  its 
section  and  among  its  members,  and,  as  the  struggle 
went  on,  it  soon  felt  the  disruptive  tendency  of  the 
warring  elements. 

In  only  its  second  General  Conference,  which  was 
held  in  1838,  there  was  an  acrimonious  debate  on  the 
question  of  human  slavery,  and  there  was  great  excite- 
ment. This  General  Conference  was  held  in  the  city  of 
Pittsburgh,  Pennsylvania,  May  15,  1838. 

Doctor  Drinkhouse  says : The  Slavery  Question 
could  not  be  suppressed  at  this  Conference.  Held  in 
the  West,  with  a majority  of  the  delegates  antislavery 
in  sentiment,  a deep,  underlying  conviction  in  the  op- 
posite sections  that  it  would  not  be  left  where  the 
Church  Constitution  had  put  it ; a civil  as  well  as 
moral  question  that  could  not  be  settled  by  Church 
legislation;  and  above  all  the  pressure  of  the  aboli- 
tionists, so-called,  upon  the  more  conservative  anti- 
slavery element  of  the  free  states,  precipitated  action 
of  some  sort,  to  satisfy  if  possible  the  manifestoes 
against  the  Southern  institution.” 

Asa  Shinn,  one  of  the  members  of  the  Conference, 
said,  in  the  Christian  Witness,  a Baptist  paper,  referring 
to  an  action  of  this  General  Conference : “ The  Com- 
mittee [Brown,  Chairman]  reported  against  slavery ; 
and  the  subject  matter  of  their  report  was  discussed  in 
open  Conference  for  two  days,  in  the  presence  of  a 
large  number  of  intelligent  spectators.  This  was  all 
clear  gain  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  righteousness,  and 


SLAVERY  A DIVISIVE  INFLUENCE  41 


was  of  itself  of  more  value,  probably,  than  any  other 
official  action  of  the  Conference.  We  at  first  desired 
an  official  testimony  of  the  General  Conference  against 
slavery.  But  the  resolution  leaving  the  matter,  for  the 
present,  with  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  with  the 
people  in  their  primary  assemblies,  will,  it  is  thought, 
promote  the  cause  of  liberty  more  than  would  such 
official  testimony  at  the  present  time,  and  in  the  present 
state  of  the  public  mind.”  He  also  said : “ Every  man 
in  the  nation  must  take  his  stand  on  the  side  of  liberty 
or  on  the  side  of  slavery.  The  signs  of  the  times  are 
portentous,  and  will  become  more  so.  The  day  is  ap- 
proaching when  every  man  will  find  that  he  cannot 
occupy  neutral  ground  before  the  full  power  of  the 
storm  appears.  The  liberty  of  the  world  and  the 
happiness  of  the  human  race  are  at  stake.  At  such  a 
time  and  in  such  a contest  indecision  would  he  imhecility, 
and  cowardice  would  he  a crime.  Almighty  God  is  on 
the  side  of  righteousness  and  freedom.” 

Referring  to  the  day  when  the  compromise  which 
sent  the  question  “ to  the  Annual  Conferences  and  the 
primary  assemblies  of  the  people  for  decision,”  Dr. 
George  Brown  says : “ That  night  we  had  a session  in 
view  of  acting  on  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Church  paper.  That  report  being  read.  Doctor  Arm- 
strong of  Tennessee  offered  a resolution  to  the  effect 
that  all  matter  on  the  subject  of  slavery  be  excluded 
from  its  columns.  Then  followed  one  of  the  most  ex- 
coriating discussions  that  I ever  remember  to  have 
heard  in  any  deliberative  body  on  the  subject  of  sla- 
very. Judge  H of  Ohio  did  battle  for  the  South. 

. . . Shinn  then  replied  to  the  whole  in  a speech  of 
great  power.” 


42 


AMEEICAN  METHODISM 


Continuing,  Doctor  Brown  says  : “ All  this  time  the 
discussion  proceeded  upon  the  supposition  that  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  had  full  power  over  the  question  at 
issue  ” until  he  reminded  the  Conference  that  Article 
X.  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Church  settled  the  mat- 
ter. This  read : “ Xo  rule  shall  be  passed  infringing 
on  the  liberty  of  speech,  or  of  the  press,”  and  Doctor 
Brown  said : “ The  press  with  us  is  constitutionally 
free,  and  this  body  has  no  power  to  make  it  otherwise.” 
Then  Doctor  Armstrong  withdrew  his  resolution  and  a 
compromise  was  adopted,  and,  as  Doctor  Brown  states : 

“ It  was  now  conceded  that  the  freedom  of  the  press 
implied  that  at  least  all  official  documents  must  be 
published,  while  communications  by  individuals  should 
come  under  the  editor’s  discretionary  control.” 

Doctor  Brown  further  remarks  that : “ On  the  fol- 
ffiwin_g^  Monday  Thomas  H.  Stocktoa  wa^elected_jeiL^ 
jtor  of  our  free  Church  pap^.  In  view,  therefore,  of 
the  premises.  Brother  Stockton  j^ent  on  to  Baltimore, 
to  enter  upon  the  duties  of  his  office.  _ But  on  his  _ar= — 
rival  he  had  the  mortification  to  find  that  on  the  slavo--. 
question  the  Book  Committee^  right  in  the  teeth  of  t^__ 
Constitution,  and  over  the  action  of  the  General  Com__ 
.ference,  had  gagged  our  Church  paper.”. 

Doctor  Stockton,  therefore,  declined  to  fill  the  chair 
under  such  circumstances,  and  the  Book  Committee 
elected  Eli  Yeates  Eeese  to  be  the  editor,  and,  as  Doc- 
tor Brown  says : “ He  filled  his  position  with  ability, 
but  alas  for  him  and  for  us  all,  in  a free  country  and  in 
a free  Church  he  edited  a gagged  paper.” 

The  General  Conference  of  1842  was  well-nigh  over- 
whelmed with  numerous  memorials  on  the  slave  ques- 
tion, with  resolutions  on  the  same  subject  from  at  least 


SLAVERY  A DIVISIVE  INFLUENCE  43 


eight  Annual  Conferences.  Doctor  Drinkhouse  says : 
“ No  one  can  doubt  the  serious  nature  of  the  question 
as  they  present  it.  . . . Scanning  these  signatures, 

you  are  impressed  with  the  uncompromising  opposition 
of  the  persons — free  from  sin  themselves,  they  could 
not  and  would  not  suffer  sin  upon  their  Southern  breth- 
ren. They  rebuke  it  in  no  measured  terms.  There 
must  be  action,  immediate  action  for  emancipation  ; the 
consequences  are  not  considered  to  the  unfortunate 
holders  of  slaves  forbidden  to  free  them  by  the  civil 
law.  And  yet  but  eight  or  nine  of  the  twenty  Confer- 
ences and  less  than  five  hundred  signers  to  the  thirteen 
or  more  memorials  made  this  demand.” 

This  Doctor  Drinkhouse  wrote  years  later  in  view  of 
the  papers  which  he  examined.  He  was  not  a member 
of  that  General  Conference  but  had  access  to  the 
records.  The  resolutions  and  memorials  were  sent  to 
a special  committee  and  from  it  came  majority  and 
minority  reports  which  were  discussed  for  several  days, 
and  all  were  displaced  by  a compromise  resolution  as 
follows : 

Besolvedy  That  in  the  judgment  of  this  General 
Conference  the  holding  of  slaves  is  not  under  all  cir- 
cumstances a sin  against  God  ; yet  in  our  opinion,  un- 
der some  circumstances  it  is  sinful,  and  in  such  cases 
should  be  discouraged  by  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Church.  The  General  Conference  does  not  feel  author- 
ized by  the  Constitution  to  legislate  on  the  subject  of 
slavery ; and  by  a solemn  vote  we  present  to  the 
Church  our  judgment,  that  the  different  Annual  Con- 
ferences, respectively,  should  make  their  own  regula- 
tions on  this  subject,  so  far  as  authorized  by  the  Con- 
stitution.” 


44 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


This  was  adopted  by  a vote  of  twenty-three  to 
twenty,  a majority  of  only  three,  most  of  the  affirma- 
tive vote  being  from  the  South  and  most  of  the  nega- 
tive from  the  North.  Then  various  groups  made  writ- 
ten protests  against  the  action,  and  there  was  one  paper 
in  its  support.  The  able  Alexander  McCaine  defended 
American  Domestic  Slavery,  basing  his  arguments  on 
the  Sacred  Scriptures,  while  Shinn,  Stockton  and  others 
answered  McCaine,  and  as  Doctor  Drinkhouse  observes, 
“ much  severity  of  speech  being  indulged  at  times  on 
both  sides,  and  the  reading  of  the  manuscript  minutes 
shows  into  what  a sad  plight  the  struggling  Church 
was  brought  by  this  agitation,”  and,  he  remarks,  “ The 
extremists  returned  to  their  homes  only  to  renew  the 
contention.” 

This  compromising  action  in  the  Conference,  which 
looked  like  an  evasion  of  the  issue,  was  unsatisfactory 
to  many,  and  the  same  historian  tells  us  that : “ Mean- 
time as  the  result  not  a few  persons  in  the  North  and 
"West,  dissatisfied  with  the  outcome  of  the  General 
Conference  action,  withdrew  from  the  Church  and 
allied  themselves  with  the  Wesleyan  Methodists,  or 
stood  aloof  altogether.  The  strain  upon  the  youth- 
ful organization  grew  more  tense  as  the  months  rolled 
on,  and  antislavery  as  a political  force  received  ac- 
cretion of  numbers  and  increased  momentum,  stimu- 
lated by  a like  condition  of  things  in  the  old  Church, 
now  arranging  itself  in  sections  on  the  same  ques- 
tion.” 

The  slavery  question  came  to  the  front  again  in  the 
General  Conference  of  1846.  A lay -member  from 
Michigan  proposed  the  following : “ Resolved^  That  the 
Conference  declare  slavery,  or  slaveholding,  to  be  sin- 


SLAVERY  A DIVISIVE  INFLUENCE  45 


ful  in  all  its  relations,  and  that  no  Conference  shall  be 
bound  to  hold  fellowship  with  any  Conference  that 
sustains  slavery.” 

A layman  from  Pittsburgh  offered  the  following: 
“ Resolved^  That  this  Conference  regard  the  efforts  of 
Abolitionists,  and  all  other  attempts  to  interfere  with 
the  slave  question,  as  improper,  on  the  part  of  a re- 
ligious body,  and  an  unwarrantable  disturbance  of  the 
regulations  of  the  civil  government.” 

These  resolutions  embodied  the  views  of  both  sides. 
It  was  also  known  that  the  South  Carolina  Conference 
had  passed  a series  of  resolutions  indorsing  slavery  and 
commending  Alexander  McCaine’s  “ Defense  of  Slavery 
from  the  Scriptures,”  which  had  been  published  in 
pamphlet  form. 

Again  a compromise  resolution  almost  identical  with 
that  adopted  by  the  preceding  General  Conference  was 
presented,  as  follows : 

^‘Resolved,  That  in  the  judgment  of  this  General 
Conference,  the  holding  of  slaves  is,  under  many  cir- 
cumstances, a sin  against  God,  and,  in  such  cases, 
should  be  condemned  by  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Church  ; nevertheless,  it  is  our  opinion  that  under  some 
circumstances  it  is  not  sinful.  This  General  Conference 
does  not  feel  itself  authorized  by  the  Constitution  to 
legislate  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  by  a solemn 
vote  we  present  to  the  Church  our  judgment  that  the 
different  Annual  Conferences,  respectively,  should 
make  their  own  regulations  on  this  subject  so  far  as 
authorized  by  the  Constitution.” 

This  was  adopted.  Whereupon  protests  were  offered 
but  it  was  voted  to  permit  no  more  references  to  the 
subject  during  the  remainder  of  the  session.  Thus 


46 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


again  was  the  direct  issue  avoided  in  the  General  Con- 
ference by  a compromise  action. 

It  is  also  stated  that  the  Conference  laid  on  the  table 
a resolution  that  declared  that  ‘‘  the  practice  of  buy- 
ing or  selling  men,  women,  or  children,  with  the  inten- 
tion of  enslaving  them  or  of  holding  them  in  slavery, 
Vv^here  emancipation  is  practicable,  is  an  offense  con- 
demned by  the  word  of  God.’’ 

In  1847  the  Genesee  Conference  by  resolution  asked 
the  other  Conferences  to  unite  with  it  in  a call  for  a 
convention  to  legislate  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  and 
to  blot  slaveholding  from  the  Church.  To  this  the 
Muskingum  Conference  responded  that  it  did  not  feel 
implicated  in  the  sin  of  slavery,  though  convinced  of  its 
moral  wrong  ; that  to  accede  to  the  request  would  re- 
sult in  a division  of  the  Church  ; and  that  it  would  not 
further  the  cause  of  emancipation.  But  as  Doctor 
Drinkhouse  remarks  : As  the  years  passed  by  and  the 
political  power  of  the  antislavery  party  augmented,  it 
was  found  impossible  to  adhere  to  such  conservative 
ground  in  the  West  and  North.” 

In  1849,  the  Michigan  Conference  refused  to  elect 
representatives  to  the  General  Conference  which  was 
to  meet  the  next  year,  “ thus  ridding  themselves  of 
complicity  with  slavery,”  as  they  interpreted  their 
action. 

In  the  General  Conference  of  1850  there  was  a 
memorial  asking  that  “ a more  definite  expression  be 
given  upon  the  sinfulness  of  slavery  . . . and  that 

the  extent  of  the  power  of  the  Annual  Conference  to 
legislate  on  the  subject  be  defined.”  This  memorial, 
which  came  from  a circuit  in  the  Pittsburgh  Confer- 
ence, was  referred  to  a committee  which  reported  that 


SLAVERY  A DIVISIVE  INFLUENCE  47 


the  General  Conference  had  no  jurisdiction ; that  it  did 
not  “ think  that  the  General  Conference  should  assume 
the  right  to  expound  the  Discipline  to  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences ; but  that  each  Annual  Conference  is  the  judge 
of  such  matters  as  are  referred  to  it  by  the  Constitu- 
tion, respectively  for  themselves,  and  are  only  held  re- 
sponsible to  the  General  Conference,  when,  in  their 
judgment,  they  shall  have  passed  ‘ rules  and  regula- 
tions ’ contravening  the  Constitution,”  and  this  report 
was  adopted. 

The  General  Conference  of  1854  passed  the  fol- 
lowing : 

“ First,  resolved,  in  the  opinion  of  this  General  Con- 
ference, that  the  holding  of  men,  women,  or  children  in 
a state  of  involuntary  servitude,  for  the  purpose  of  gain, 
where  the  civil  law  will  admit  of  emancipation,  and 
where  the  interest  of  the  slave  would  be  promoted 
thereby,  is  a violation  of  the  morality  of  the  Christian 
Scriptures.  Second,  resolved  that,  according  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church,  tak- 
ing the  word  of  God  for  the  rule,  the  local  judiciary, 
and  not  the  General  Conference,  is  the  proper  tribunal 
by  which  all  questions  of  morality,  bearing  upon  the 
standing  of  members  of  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Church,  should  be  determined.” 

All  these  compromises  merely  preserved  the  Gen- 
eral Conferences  from  a definite  decision  on  the  slave 
question  and  left  the  matter  open  for  the  Annual 
Conferences,  and  for  individuals,  to  judge  and  decide 
for  themselves,  and  this  act  of  1854  was  full  of  loop- 
holes allowing  the  escape  of  any  who  desired  to  evade 
the  issue. 

The  effect  was  simply  avoidance  and  repression,  but 


48 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


the  repression  meant  an  ultimate  explosion.  As  one 
wrote : 

“ There  grew  up  a demand  for  utter  separation. 
The  brethren  in  the  free  states  were  twitted  upon  their 
continued  official  relation  to  Conferences  in  the  slave 
states ; and  in  more  extreme  sections  some  of  the  Con- 
ferences seriously  decreased  in  numbers  owing  to  this 
cause.  The  wisest  and  most  conservative  men  yielded 
to  the  infection.  . . . And  now  these  brethren  took 

up  the  question  of  ‘ a peaceful  separation  ’ from  the  East 
and  South.  It  was  illegitimate  business,  but  a number 
of  the  Conferences  having  instructed  their  delegates  to 
consider  it,  an  advisory  committee  of  one  from  each 
Conference  was  appointed  to  ‘ propose  suitable  action  in 
the  case.’  ” 

This  committee  reported  that : In  our  opinion,  the 
advantages  derived  from  our  relation  to  the  General 
Conference,  as  now  constituted,  are  overbalanced  by  the 
disadvantages  arising  from  it,”  and  suggested  that  “ as 
we  cannot  hope  for  reasonable  permanent  harmony,” 
the  question  arises  as  to  whether  “ the  peace  and  inter- 
ests of  both  the  Southern  and  Northern  Conferences 
will  not  be  promoted  by  a peaceful  separation.”  It 
further  recommended  the  several  Annual  Conferences 
in  the  North  and  West  to  “ clothe  their  representatives 
with  conventional  powers,  and  instruct  them  to  meet  in 
the  city  of  Cincinnati,  O.,  on  the  second  Wednesday  of 
November,  1857,  and  then  and  there  determine  whether 
they  will  attend  the  General  Conference,  to  be  held  at 
Lynchburg,  Ya.,  in  May,  1858,  or  whether  they  will 
take  measures  for  the  organization  of  a General  Confer- 
ence embracing  only  Annual  Conferences  opposed  to  the 
system  of  American  slavery.” 


SLAVERY  A DIVISIVE  INFLUENCE  49 


Says  the  historian : 

“ The  knotty  problem  with  them  was : How  to 
separate  and  not  secede.  The  former  they  must  do  ; 
the  latter  they  repudiated.  It  was  Scylla  or  Charyb- 
dis.” 

The  Convention  did  meet  in  Cincinnati  on  the  11th 
of  November,  1857,  and  adopted  a memorial  setting 
forth  their  grievances  as  antislavery  men  and  demand- 
ing modifications  in  the  Constitution  and  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, and,  among  other  things,  that  the  proviso  under- 
stood as  insuring  civil  protection  to  slave  dealers  and 
slaveholders  be  stricken  out ; and  that  a clause  be  in- 
serted making  voluntary  slaveholding  and  slave  dealing 
a bar  to  membership  in  the  Church.  The  Convention 
also  asked  that  a call  be  made  for  a Convention,  in 
May,  1859,  to  make  these  changes,  and  added  that  “ if 
this  General  Conference  shall  not  see  good  to  adopt 
action  necessary  to  remove  our  difiiculties,  we  cannot 
conscientiously  consent  to  a further  continuance  of  our 
ecclesiastical  connection.’’ 

The  General  Conference  of  1858  recommended  to 
the  Annual  Conferences  to  call  a Convention.  This 
“ General  Convention  of  Delegates  from  the  Northern 
and  Western  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Church  ” was  called  and  it  met  in  Springfield,  Ohio, 
November  10-16,  1858. 

It  was  declared  that  the  late  General  Conference 
was  “ a legal  nullity  ” and  the  Convention  adopted  a 
paper  the  gist  of  which  is  as  follows  : 

“Therefore,  resolved,  that  indisputable  facts,  the 
inductions  of  sound  logic,  the  dictates  of  Christian 
prudence,  and  an  enlightened  sense  of  our  duty  to 
God  and  man,  justify  and  warrant  this  Convention,  in 


50 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


the  name  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences  herein 
represented,  to  now  declare  all  official  connection,  co- 
operation, and  official  fellowship  with  and  between  said 
Conferences,  and  such  Conferences  and  Churches, 
within  the  Methodist  Protestant  Association,  as  prac- 
tice or  tolerate  slaveholding  and  slave-trading,  as  speci- 
fied in  said  Memorial,  to  be  suspended  until  the  evil  of 
slavery  complained  of  be  removed  ; and  they  agree  to 
put  back  the  general  interests,  and  work  with  their 
brethren  of  the  West  and  North  in  sustaining  them 
under  the  Constitution.” 

This  was  a conditional  suspension  of  relationship  but, 
as  Doctor  Drinkhouse  says:  “In  the  East  and  South 
these  proceedings,  taken  together,  were  declared  a 
secession  from  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church.  The 
continental  character  of  the  denomination  was  broken, 
and  each  section  went  on  its  way  striving,  under  serious 
disabilities,  to  overcome  the  local  besetments  and  ob- 
structions with  which  they  were  environed.” 

Thus  the  disturbing  and  divisive  force  of  American 
slavery  is  illustrated  in  the  division  of  the  Methodist 
Protestant  Church,  but  thirteen  years  before  this  action 
Southern  Conferences  had  withdrawn  from  the  original 
Mother  Church.  In  this  case  the  withdrawal  was  by 
those  who  adhered  to  slavery,  while  in  the  Methodist 
Protestant  Church  the  withdrawal  was  by  those  op- 
posed to  slavery. 

Indeed  every  great  Church  with  a continental  spread 
in  the  United  States,  or  a jurisdiction  throughout  the 
nation,  was  divided  by  slavery  excepting  the  Roman 
Catholic  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Churches. 


A NOETHEEN  WITHDEAWAL 


IT  is  simply  a chronological  fact  that  a couple  of 
years  after  the  formation  of  the  Methodist  Prot- 
estant Church  the  movement  for  the  abolition  of 
American  slavery  began  to  assume  an  organized  form. 

In  1832  the  New  England  Antislavery  Society  was 
organized,  and  the  next  year  was  started  the  American 
Antislavery  Society.  This  was  organized  in  the  city 
of  Philadelphia,  in  1833,  and  at  the  organizing  con- 
vention were  sixty-three  abolitionists  from  eleven  states 
of  the  Union,  and  among  them  were  William  Lloyd 
Garrison  and  the  poet,  John  Greenleaf  Whittier,  the 
latter  being  one  of  the  secretaries. 

This  Convention  prepared  and  published  a declara- 
tion which  recited  the  wrongs  and  sufferings  of  the 
slaves.  It  declared  that  ‘‘in  view  of  the  civil  and 
religious  privileges  of  this  nation,  the  guilt  of  its  op- 
pression ” was  “ unequalled  by  any  other  on  the  face  of 
the  earth,”  “ that  every  American  citizen  who  retains 
a human  being  in  involuntary  bondage  is  a man- 
stealer  ; . . . that  the  slaves  ought  to  be  instantly 

set  free ; . . . that  all  those  laws  which  are  now 

in  force  admitting  the  right  of  slavery  are,  before  God, 
utterly  null  and  void.”  It  admitted  “ the  sovereignty 
of  each  state  to  legislate  exclusively  on  the  subject  of 
slavery  within  its  limits,”  but  maintained  that  the 
United  States  Congress  had  “ a right  to  suppress  the 

61 


62 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


domestic  slave-trade  between  the  states,  and  to  abolish 
slavery  in  the  territories,”  and  that  it  was  the  duty  of 
the  people  of  the  free  states  “ to  remove  slavery  by 
moral  and  political  action,  as  prescribed  in  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States.” 

The  Antislavery  movement  was  now  organized  and 
at  once  gained  great  momentum.  Many  rallied  to  its 
support  so  that  the  American  Society  alone,  in  the  year 
1836,  expended  thirty  thousand  dollars  or  more  in  its 
propaganda,  issued  one  million  publications,  employed 
fourteen  lecturing  agents,  and  organized  over  five  hun- 
dred auxiliary  societies. 

The  agitation  was  decidedly  pronounced  and  the  ex- 
citement became  more  and  more  intense.  The  Churches 
participated  and  while  the  nation  was  shaken  politically, 
the  people  of  different  denominations  were  moved  by 
the  moral  aspects  of  the  questions  involved. 

About  the  same  time  that  the  American  Antislavery 
Society  was  formed,  there  was  organized  in  New  York 
City  the  first  Methodist  Episcopal  abolition  society. 
That  was  in  1833.  At  the  organization.  La  Roy  Sun- 
derland presided.  Bishop  Hedding  was  elected  perma- 
nent president  but  declined  to  serve.  In  1836  the  New 
England  Conference  organized  an  antislavery  society 
which  advocated  the  immediate  and  unconditional 
abolition  of  slavery,  and  the  same  year  the  New 
Hampshire  Conference  formed  a similar  society.  The 
overwhelming  sentiment  is  indicated  in  the  fact  that 
out  of  the  sixteen  delegates  elected  to  the  General 
Conference  by  these  two  Annual  Conferences,  fourteen 
of  them  were  outspoken  abolitionists. 

The  General  Conference  of  1836  was  a disappoint- 
ment to  the  extreme  abolitionists  in  the  Church.  Indi- 


A NORTHEKN  WITHDRAWAL 


53 


viduals  in  the  body  spoke  strongly  against  the  agitation, 
one  saying  that  abolitionism  was  ‘‘  an  unhallowed  flame 
that  has  burned  to  the  destruction  of  both  whites  and 
blacks,”  and  one  distinguished  man  from  the  South, 
John  Early,  said  : “ Let  the  Methodists  from  Maine  to 
Georgia  come  out  and  denounce  Abolitionists,  and  it 
will  place  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  on  an  emi- 
nence that  it  never  had  before.” 

The  abolitionists  formed  a small  minority  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  but  they  had  a voice,  and  their  leader 
was  Orange  Scott,  of  the  New  England  Conference. 
He  replied  to  the  other  side,  and,  among  other  things, 
said : The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  an  unholy 
alliance  with  slavery ; she  ought  not,  therefore,  give 
herself  any  peace  until  she  cleanses  her  skirts  from 
blood-guiltiness.  Shall  the  dearest  interests  of  undying 
millions  be  sacrificed  upon  the  altar  of  the  peace  of  the 
Church  ? . . . The  die  is  cast.  The  days  of  the 

captivity  of  our  bondmen  are  numbered.  Their  re- 
demption is  written  in  heaven.” 

It  was  a masterly  address,  for  Mr.  Scott  was  both  a 
logician  and  an  orator,  and,  particularly,  when  he  had 
a theme  that  moved  him,  and  deeply  moved  he  was, 
notwithstanding  his  marked  self-possession. 

John  G.  Whittier,  who  was  both  poet  and  abolition- 
ist, thus  describes  him  as  he  appeared  on  another  oc- 
casion : 

“We  had  listened  with  intense  interest  to  the  thrill- 
ing eloquence  of  George  Thompson,  and  Henry  B. 
Stanton  had  put  forth  one  of  his  happiest  efforts.  A 
crowded  assembly  had  been  chained  to  their  seats  for 
hours.  It  was  near  ten  o’clock  in  the  evening.  A 
pause  ensued  ; the  audience  became  unsettled,  and  many 


54: 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


were  moving  towards  the  door  purposing  to  retire.  A 
new  speaker  arose.  He  was  a plain-looking  man,  and 
seemed  rather  to  hesitate  in  the  few  observations  he 
first  offered.  An  increasing  disposition  to  listen  evi- 
dently encouraged  him,  and  he  became  animated  and 
lively,  eliciting  demonstrations  of  applause.  Spurred 
on  by  this,  he  continued  with  increasing  interest  evident 
on  the  part  of  his  hearers,  who  now  resigned  themselves 
willingly  to  his  powerful  appeals,  responding  at  short 
intervals  in  thunders  of  applause.  To  many  his  illus- 
trations were  new  and  startling.  I never  can  forget 
the  masterly  manner  in  which  he  met  the  objection 
that  abolitionists  were  blinded  by  prejudice  and  work- 
ing in  the  dark.  ‘ Blind  though  we  be,’  he  remarked, 
‘ aye,  sir,  though  blind  as  Samson  in  the  temple  of 
Dagon,  like  him,  if  we  can  do  no  more,  we  will  grope 
our  way  along,  feeling  for  the  pillars  of  that  temple 
which  has  been  consecrated  to  the  bloody  rites  of  the 
Moloch  Slavery ; and,  grasping  at  their  base,  we  will 
bend  forward,  nerved  by  the  omnipotence  of  truth,  and, 
o’erturning  the  supports  on  which  this  system  of  abom- 
ination rests,  upheave  the  entire  fabric,  whose  undis- 
tinguishable  ruins  shall  yet  mark  the  spot  where  our 
grandest  moral  victory  was  proudly  won.’  The  climax 
was  complete ; the  applause  was  unbounded  as  the 
speaker  retired.  Upon  inquiry,  we  heard  the  name  of 
O.  Scott,  now  so  well  known  among  the  ablest  advo- 
cates of  the  slave’s  cause.” 

The  General  Conference  of  1836  refused  to  disap- 
prove of  slavery,  passed  resolutions  condemning  abo- 
litionism, and  disclaiming  ‘‘  any  right,  wish,  or  inten- 
tion to  interfere  in  the  civil  and  political  relation  be- 
tween master  and  slave  as  it  exists  in  the  slaveholding 


A NORTHERN  WITHDRAWAL 


65 


states  of  this  Union,”  and  also  disapproving,  in  the 
most  unqualified  sense,  the  conduct  of  the  two  members 
of  the  General  Conference  who  are  reported  to  have 
lectured  in  this  city  (Cincinnati)  recently,  upon  and  in 
favor  of  modern  abolitionism.” 

Some  Annual  Conferences  in  the  North  and  West  by 
resolutions  pronounced  against  the  abolitionist  agitation, 
and  in  some  Conferences  candidates  for  the  ministry 
were  rejected  and  some  members  were  suspended  from 
the  ministry  because  of  their  abolition  activity. 

Nevertheless  the  antislavery  sentiment  grew  and  the 
activity  of  the  abolitionists  within  the  Church  greatly 
increased. 

To  the  General  Conference  of  1810  were  sent  memo- 
rials asking  for  antislavery  action.  In  response  to  an 
address  from  the  British  Wesleyan  Conference,  the 
General  Conference  referred  to  the  right  of  the  several 
states  to  pass  diverse  laws  on  the  subject  of  slavery, 
and  that  it  would  be  wrong  for  the  Church  to  enact  a 
rule  in  opposition  to  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the 
state  on  this  subject,  but  there  was  no  direct  action  on 
the  slave  issue  or  upon  abolitionism. 

Taken  altogether  the  action  and  non-action  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1810  were  unsatisfactory  to  the 
extreme  antislavery  agitators  in  the  North,  and,  per- 
haps, almost  equally  unsatisfactory  to  the  extremists  in 
the  Southern  part  of  the  Church. 

That  the  conservative  action  of  the  General  Confer- 
ences and  the  correspondingly  conservative  actions  of 
certain  officials  were  not  encouraging  to  the  extreme 
antislavery  element  in  the  North  was  soon  demon- 
strated by  manifestations  of  disaffection  that  speedily 


56  • 


AMERICAI^  METHODISM 


showed  themselves,  and  the  danger  of  a schism  could 
not  be  disguised. 

It  was  true  that  the  General  Rules  of  the  Church 
prohibited  “ The  buying  and  selling  of  men,  women, 
and  children,  with  an  intention  to  enslave  them,”  and 
that  the  Book  of  Discipline  contained  a Section  on  Sla- 
very beginning  with  the  question  : “ What  shall  be  done 
for  the  extirpation  of  the  evil  of  slavery  ? ” and  that  the 
law  said:  “We  declare  that  we  are  as  much  as  ever 
convinced  of  the  great  evil  of  slavery : therefore  no 
slaveholder  shall  be  eligible  to  any  official  station  in 
our  Church  hereafter,  where  the  laws  of  the  state  in 
which  he  lives  will  admit  of  emancipation,  and  permit 
the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom,”  and  that  the  law 
also  said  that  “ When  any  travelling  preacher  becomes 
an  owner  of  a slave  or  slaves,  by  any  means,  he  shall 
forfeit  his  ministerial  character  in  our  Church,  unless 
he  execute,  if  it  be  practicable,  a legal  emancipation  of 
such  slaves,  conformably  to  the  laws  of  the  state  in 
which  he  lives.” 

Strong  as  this  was  regarded  to  be  under  existing  con- 
ditions it  was  not  sufficient  to  satisfy  and  pacify  the 
aroused  antislavery  element  in  certain  Northern  sec- 
tions. The  abolitionists  wanted  something  more  drastic 
and  wanted  it  without  delay. 

Defeated  and  discouraged  quite  a number  prepared 
to  leave  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  In  about  a 
year  after  the  General  Conference  of  1840,  or,  to  be 
more  exact,  on  the  13th  of  May,  1841,  a body  under 
the  title  of  Wesleyan  Methodists  was  organized  in 
Michigan.  It  was  a small  organization  but  it  vvas  the 
beginning  of  a stream  that  would  increase  in  volume. 
In  two  years  its  reports  showed  seventeen  stationed 


A NORTHERN  WITHDRAWAL 


57 


preachers,  nine  circuits,  and  1,116  members.  Move- 
ments were  springing  up  and  streams  were  forming  in 
other  localities.  Numbers  withdrew  from  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church.  Some  went  into  other  denomi- 
nations, while  many  who  withdrew  remained  for  a time 
undecided  as  to  whether  they  should  form  a new 
Church,  and,  as  Doctor  Matlack  observed,  “ stood  wait- 
ing in  expectation  of  a secession  of  the  main  body  of 
the  Abolitionists.” 

The  Reverend  Orange  Scott,  on  account  of  ill  health, 
retired  to  Newbury,  Vermont,  but,  during  the  winter  of 
1840-41,  he  wrote  occasional  articles  for  the  press. 
Doctor  Matlack,  his  biographer,  tells  us  that  in  some 
of  these  articles  he  “ deprecated  his  own  past  conduct 
of  conducting  the  antislavery  controversy.”  Mr.  Scott 
himself  declared : ‘‘I  have  no  hope  that  any  improve- 
ment will  take  place  in  regard  to  Church  governmentj 
and  that  there  is  no  alternative  but  to  submit  to  things 
pretty  much  as  they  are,  or  secede.  I have  never  yet 
felt  prepared  for  the  latter,  but  my  opinion  is  that 
those  who  cannot  conscientiously  submit  to  Methodist 
economy  and  usages  had  better  peaceably  leave.” 

However  he  was  urged  to  secede,  to  prepare  a plan 
of  Church  government,  and  to  call  a Convention,  and 
in  1842  he  announced  a change  of  opinion  and  pur- 
pose, and,  with  Jotham  Horton  and  La  Roy  Sunder- 
land, published  a withdrawal  from  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  and  announced  a Convention  to  prepare 
for  a new  Church  organization  which  would  be  free 
from  slavery  and  non-episcopal  in  polity. 

This  Convention  was  held  in  Utica,  New  York,  on 
the  31st  of  May,  1843,  and  at  it  was  formed  “The 
Wesleyan  Methodist  Connection  of  America.”  This 


58 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


new  denomination  retained  much  of  the  polity  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  such  as  the  General, 
Annual,  and  Quarterly  Conferences,  thus  maintaining 
the  connectional  principle.  The  old  general  rule  was 
modified  so  as  to  read ; “ Buying  or  selling  of  men, 
women,  or  children  with  the  intention  to  enslave  them, 
or  holding  them  as  slaves,  or  claiming  that  it  is  right 
so  to  do,”  and  their  eighth  Article  of  Religion  read  : 
“We  are  required  to  acknowledge  God  as  our  only 
supreme  ruler,  and  all  men  are  created  by  Him  equal 
in  all  natural  rights.  Wherefore,  all  men  are  bound 
so  to  order  all  their  individual  and  social  and  political 
acts  as  to  render  to  God  entire  and  absolute  obedience, 
and  to  secure  to  all  men  the  enjoyment  of  every  natural 
right,  as  well  as  to  promote  the  greatest  happiness  of 
each  in  the  possession  and  exercise  of  such  rights.” 

The  whole  number  who  gave  in  their  adhesion  at  the 
beginning  of  this  new  ecclesiastical  organization  was 
nearly  six  thousand,  including  twenty-two  ministers 
from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  with  as  many 
more  from  the  “ Protestant  ” and  “ Reformed  Method- 
ists ” who  were  present  at  the  Convention.  These,  with 
twice  as  many  more  who  reported  by  letter,  were  di- 
vided into  six  Annual  Conferences,  and,  at  the  first 
General  Conference,  which  was  held  eighteen  months 
later,  there  was  reported  a total  membership  of  fifteen 
thousand. 

Thus  there  came  about  a Northern  withdrawal  from 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  when,  in  1843,  a large 
number  of  ministers  and  members,  particularly  in  the 
northeastern  section  of  the  country,  who  felt  that  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  General  Conference  was  not  suffi- 
ciently pronounced  in  its  antagonism  to  slaveholding. 


A NORTHERN  WITHDRAWAL 


69 


and  not  sufficiently  prompt  in  dealing  with  slave- 
holders within  the  Church,  withdrew  from  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  and  formed  another  Church 
which  they  called  “The  Wesleyan  Methodist  Connec- 
tion of  America,”  which  body  was  based  mainly  on  op- 
position to  the  enslavement  of  human  beings. 

This  departure  was  supposed  to  have  carried  off  the 
very  pronounced  abolition  element,  composed  of  those 
who  were  most  radical  in  their  utterances  and  actions, 
and  to  have  practically  removed  the  divisive  issue  from 
the  ensuing  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  which  was  to  meet  the  next  year,  but 
this  prognostication  proved  to  be  incorrect. 


YII 


THE  SOUTHEEN  WITHDEAWAL 
LITTLE  before  the  middle  of  the  last  century 


occurred  the  largest  withdrawal.  In  1844  the 


-i-  JL  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  which  met  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
found  that,  notwithstanding  the  withdrawal  the  pre- 
ceding year  of  a large  number  of  ministers  and  lay- 
men of  a decidedly  antislavery  type,  who  formed  the 
Wesleyan  Methodist  Connection,  the  antislavery  senti- 
ment in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  greatly 
gained  in  strength. 

As  a result  there  had  come  about  throughout  the 
Church  a great  collision  in  sentiment  between  the  two 
opposing  elements  on  the  slavery  question,  and  this 
conflict  culminated  in  the  General  Conference  of  1844. 

As  the  country  was  growing  and  the  opposing  opin- 
ions were  rapidly  developing,  an  immediate  conflict  be- 
tween the  two  sides  appeared  to  be  inevitable,  but  the 
particular  occasion  for  the  strife  and  struggle  in  the 
Church  at  that  moment  was  the  fact  that  one  of  the 
bishops  of  the  Church  who  resided  in  the  South  had 
become  an  owner  of  slaves,  through  his  marriage  with 
a lady  who  owned  slaves  and  who  brought  them  with 
her  to  her  husband. 

Heretofore  no  bishop  of  the  Church  had  in  this,  or 
any  other,  way  owned  slaves,  but  now,  when,  in  this 
case  for  the  first  time,  slavery  and  the  episcopate  were 


60 


THE  SOUTHERN  WITHDRAWAL 


61 


directly  connected,  and  the  fact  became  known  among 
the  strong  opponents  of  human  slavery  in  the  General 
Conference,  there  was  intense  feeling,  and  an  issue  was 
created  on  which  the  members  of  the  Conference 
sharply  divided  in  their  judgment,  their  deliverances, 
and  their  decision. 

The  General  Conference  of  1814  considered  and  dis- 
cussed the  matter  for  a long  time,  and  finally  pro- 
nounced against  slaveholding  by  a bishop,  and  de- 
clared that  Bishop  James  O.  Andrew,  the  bishop  in 
question,  ought  to  desist  from  the  exercise  of  the  func- 
tions of  his  episcopal  office  until  he  relieved  himself 
from  this  impediment  of  slaveholding,  which  the  ma- 
jority held  unfitted  him  for  presiding  in  all  the  Annual 
Conferences. 

On  this  point  there  has  been  an  erroneous  impres- 
sion. Indeed  there  has  been  an  oft-repeated  assertion 
that  the  General  Conference  deposed  Bishop  Andrew 
from  the  episcopate,  but,  notwithstanding  the  preva- 
lence and  persistence  of  this,  or  an  equivalent,  notion 
the  supposition  is  incorrect  and  the  contrary  is  the  fact. 

The  record  shows  that  the  General  Conference  did 
not  deprive  Bishop  Andrew  of  his  episcopate,  and  it  did 
not  even  suspend  him  from  his  office. 

All  that  the  Conference  did  was  to  pass  what  was 
called  the  Finley  substitute,  which  read  as  follows : 

“ Besolved^  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  Conference 
that  he  desist  from  the  exercise  of  this  office  so  long  as 
this  impediment  remains,”  and  this  was  adopted  by  a 
vote  of  110  yeas  to  68  nays. 

In  the  resolution  there  was  not  a word  about  deposi- 
tion or  even  suspension.  It  did  express  the  sense,  or 
opinion,  of  the  body  that  he  ought  to  desist  from  ex- 


62 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


ercising  his  episcopal  functions  until  he  ceased  to  be  a 
slaveholder— that  he  ought,  as  though  the  matter  was 
left  to  him  and  he  was  to  act  voluntarily — and  the  res- 
olution was  so  phrased,  that  the  moment  he  freed  him- 
self from  the  impediment  by  giving  up  his  slavehold- 
ing connection  with  human  slavery,  that  very  moment 
he  was  free,  under  the  resolution  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, and  without  any  objection,  to  perform  all  the 
functions  of  the  episcopal  office  of  which  he  had  never 
been  deprived. 

Not  only  did  the  General  Conference  not  depose  or 
suspend  Bishop  Andrew,  but  it  continued  to  recognize 
him  as  one  of  its  bishops,  directed  that  his  name  as  such 
should  appear  in  the  list  of  bishops  printed  in  the  hymn- 
book  and  the  Book  of  Discipline,  his  support  was  pro- 
vided for  in  the  regular  way,  and  as  to  the  work  he 
might  do  that  was  left  to  himself.  The  exact  resolu- 
tion as  to  his  activities  reads  thus  : “ That  whether  in 
any,  and  if  any,  in  what  work.  Bishop  Andrew  be  em- 
ployed, is  to  be  determined  by  his  own  decision  and 
action,  in  relation  to  the  previous  action  of  this  Confer- 
ence in  his  case.” 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  leading  Southern  delegates 
voted  for  this  resolution  and  the  resolutions  covering 
the  listing  of  Bishop  Andrew’s  name,  and  the  provision 
for  his  salary. 

All  these  things  show  that  the  General  Conference 
of  1841  did  not  depose  or  suspend  Bishop  Andrew,  and 
it  has  been  held  that,  as  far  as  any  legal  effect  of  its 
action  was  concerned,  the  Bishop  could  have  gone  on 
with  his  episcopal  work  though  the  Conference  had 
expressed  the  opinion  that  he  ought  not  to  do  so  until 
he  ceased  to  be  a slaveholder. 


THE  SOUTHERN  WITHDRAWAL 


63 


Delegates  chiefly  from  the  Southern  Annual  Con- 
ferences entered  a formal  protest  against  the  action  of  the 
General  Conference  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew.  The 
protest  is  a lengthy  document  and  in  it  the  signers  said : 

“ We  protest  against  the  act,  because  we  recognize  in 
this  General  Conference  no  right,  power,  or  authority, 
ministerial,  judicial,  or  administrative,  to  suspend  or 
depose  a bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  or 
otherwise  subject  him  to  any  ofiicial  disability  what- 
ever, without  the  formal  presentation  of  a charge  or 
charges,  alleging  that  the  bishop  to  be  dealt  with  has 
been  guilty  of  the  violation  of  some  law,  or  at  least 
some  disciplinary  obligation  of  the  Church,  and  also 
upon  conviction  of  such  charge,  after  due  form  of 
trial.” 

To  the  “ Protest  ” the  General  Conference  made  a 
formal,  and  somewhat  lengthy  reply,  in  which  the 
action  of  the  Conference  was  defended  on  various 
grounds,  and,  in  answer  to  the  specific  point  in  the 
“ Protest,”  the  Conference  said : “ The  action  of  the 
General  Conference  was  neither  judicial  nor  punitive. 
It  neither  achieves  nor  intends  a deposition,  nor  so 
much  as  a legal  suspension.  Bishop  Andrew  is  still  a 
bishop  ; and  should  he,  against  the  expressed  sense  of 
the  General  Conference,  proceed  in  the  discharge  of  his 
functions,  his  official  acts  would  be  valid.” 

This  clearly  established  the  episcopal  status  of 
Bishop  Andrew,  that  he  had  not  been  deposed  or 
suspended  but  still  was  a bishop  who  could  exercise  his 
powers  if  he  pleased,  though  the  General  Conference, 
partly  for  prudential  reasons,  thought  he  ought  not  to 
do  so  until  he  ceased  to  be  a slaveholder. 

Such  a statement  was  calculated,  one  might  think,  to 


64 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


satisfy  those  who  had  signed  the  “ Protest  ” but  there 
was  something  beyond  the  issue  in  regard  to  the 
bishop.  The  broad  issue  was  the  slave  question.  It 
was  becoming  the  great  issue  in  the  nation  and  in  the 
Church  as  well,  and  it  was  becoming  a sectional  issue. 

The  Southern  delegates  continued  in  the  General 
Conference  until  the  final  adjournment  but  they  were 
not  satisfied,  and,  immediately  after  the  close  of  the 
Conference,  they  communicated  with  their  constituents 
in  the  South  in  a strongly  phrased  address. 

The  agitation  went  on  and  about  a year  after  the  ad- 
journment of  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  namely, 
in  May  of  1845,  thirteen  of  the  Conferences  in  the 
farther  South  withdrew  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  their  withdrawal  being  a protest  against  the 
action  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  1844  in  regard  to  Bishop  James  O. 
Andrew  and,  in  defense  of  their  slaveholding  bishop, 
they  formed  a new  denomination,  which,  as  indicative 
of  its  locality,  they  called  ‘‘  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South.” 

There  was,  however,  a broader  consideration  and  that 
was  the  identity  of  their  section  at  that  time  with  hu- 
man slavery.  Evidently  that  fact  had  great  influence 
in  determining  the  withdrawal. 

At  this  point  and  this  time  we  attempt  no  argument 
either  jpro  or  con^  but  simply  state  admitted  or  self- 
evident  facts. 

Much,  however,  might  be  said  about  the  trying  cir- 
cumstances, political,  social,  legal,  and  economic,  of 
that  exciting  period,  with  human  slavery  recognized 
and  practically  everywhere  in  the  South,  while  in  the 
North  there  was  an  overwhelming  and  growing  antag- 


THE  SOUTHERN  WITHDRAWAL 


65 


onism  to  this  so-called  “ peculiar  institution.”  The  con- 
ditions were  such  that  intense  feeling  was  easily  aroused, 
while  the  excitement  was  calculated  to  confuse  thought 
and  multiply  perplexities  and  interfere  with  calmness  in 
action.  This,  however,  is  not  the  place  for  discussion 
along  this  line.  We  merely  give  the  history. 

The  fact  now  to  be  kept  in  mind  is  that  the  said  thir- 
teen Southern  Conferences  withdrew  from  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  and  formed  another  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  and  for  the  South,  and  as  a dis- 
tinguishing title  called  it  The  Methodist  Episbopal 
Church,  South.  The  new  body  started  on  its  career  in 
the  South  while  the  old  and  original  “ Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  ” con- 
tinued on  its  way. 

The  occasion  and  the  cause  of  the  withdrawal  was 
human  slavery. 

Before  the  close  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844 
Southern  delegates  indicated  a withdrawal  in  a paper 
called  the  “ Declaration,”  which  they  presented. 

This  Declaration  clearly  shows  that  the  cause  for  the 
threatened  separation  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  was  the  existence  of  slavery,  and  the  mental 
attitude  of  the  slaveholding  states,  including  the  people 
therein  who  adhered  to  slavery  and  who  dominated  the 
Southern  section. 

Thus  the  Declaration  of  Southern  delegates  in  1844 
said : 

“ The  delegates  of  the  Conferences  in  the  slavehold- 
ing states  take  leave  to  declare  to  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  that  the 
continued  agitation  of  the  subject  of  slavery  and 
abolition  in  a portion  of  the  Church,  and  the  fre- 


66 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


quent  action  on  that  subject  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence and  especially  the  extra-judicial  proceedings 
against  Bishop  Andrew,  which  resulted,  on  Saturday 
last,  in  the  virtual  suspension  of  him  from  his  office 
as  Superintendent,  must  produce  a state  of  things  in 
the  South  which  renders  a continuance  of  the  juris- 
diction of  this  General  Conference  over  these  Confer- 
ences inconsistent  with  the  success  of  the  ministry  in 
the  slaveholding  states.’’ 

The  reasons  in  this  Declaration  for  leaving  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  are,  first,  the 
existence  of  slavery;  second,  that  their  work  is  in 
slaveholding  states ; third,  the  “ agitation  of  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery  and  abolition  in  a portion  of  the 
Church  ” ; fourth,  the  frequent  action  on  that  subject 
in  the  General  Conference ; and,  fifth,  the  action  in  the 
case  of  Bishop  Andrew. 

All  through  this  recital  runs  the  fact  of  slavery,  and 
adherence  to  human  slavery,  as  against  the  opposition 
to  such  slavery.  It  was  manifestly  involved  in  the 
case  of  Bishop  James  O.  Andrew  for  the  objection 
made  to  him  was  that  he  had  become  a slaveholder. 

As  to  whether  the  consideration  of  his  case  was  an 
“ extra-judicial  proceeding,”  or  whether  the  action,  as 
he  was  not  under  charges  and  was  not  tried,  an  ‘‘  extra- 
judicial proceeding,”  did  not  alter  the  main  fact,  for  it 
was  because  of  slavery  and  slaveholding  that  he  had 
any  special  consideration  at  all.  Further,  as  a matter 
of  legal  fact,  he  was  not  suspended  in  any  sense. 

The  Declaration  plainly  shows  that  the  existence 
of  slavery  was  the  reason  for  the  threatened  with- 
drawal and  the  actual  withdrawal  of  certain  Southern 
Conferences. 


THE  SOUTHERN  WITHDRAWAL 


67 


In  the  other  paper  called  “ The  Protest,”  the  minor- 
ity representing  thirteen  Southern  Conferences  repeated 
the  characterization  of  the  action  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence in  the  case  of  Bishop  James  O.  Andrew,  and  in  it 
said,  quoting  more  fully  : We  protest  against  the  act 
of  the  majority  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  as  extra- 
judicial to  all  intents  and  purposes,  being  both  without 
law,  and  contrary  to  law.  We  protest  against  the  act, 
because  we  recognize  in  this  General  Conference  no 
right,  power,  or  authority,  ministerial,  judicial,  or  ad- 
ministrative, to  suspend  or  depose  a bishop  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  or  otherwise  subject  him  to  any 
ofl&cial  disability  whatever,  without  the  formal  presen- 
tation of  a charge  or  charges,  alleging  that  the  bishop 
to  be  dealt  with  has  been  guilty  of  the  violation  of  some 
law,  or  at  least  some  disciplinary  obligation  of  the 
Church,  and  also  upon  conviction  of  such  charge,  after 
due  form  of  trial.” 

To  this  the  General  Conference  made  a “Reply” 
in  which  it  said : “ The  transaction  which  had 
brought  such  distress  upon  the  Church,  and  threat- 
ened such  extensive  ruin,  was  dealt  with  merely  as 
a fact — as  a practical  difficulty — for  the  removal  or 
palliation  of  which  it  was  the  duty  of  the  General 
Conference  to  provide.  . . . The  action  of  the 

General  Conference  was  neither  judicial  nor  punitive. 
It  neither  achieves  nor  intends  a deposition,  nor  as 
much  as  a legal  suspension.  Bishop  Andrew  is  still  a 
bishop ; and  should  he,  against  the  expressed  sense  of 
the  General  Conference,  proceed  in  the  discharge  of  his 
functions,  his  official  acts  would  be  valid.” 

In  regard  to  the  threatening  division  the  General 
Conference  in  its  “ Reply  ” said ; 


68 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


When  all  the  law,  and  the  facts  in  the  case  shall 
have  been  spread  before  an  impartial  community,  the 
majority  have  no  doubt  that  they  will  fix  ‘ the  resjponsi- 
Mlity  of  division^  should  such  an  unhappy  event  take 
place,  ‘ where  in  justice  it  belongs.^  They  will  ask.  Who 
first  introduced  slavery  into  the  Episcopacy  ? And 
the  answer  will  be.  Not  the  General  Conference.  Who 
opposed  the  attempt  to  withdraw  it  from  the  Epis- 
copacy ? Not  the  General  Conference.  Who  resisted 
the  measure  of  peace  that  was  proposed — the  mildest 
that  the  case  allowed  ? Not  the  majority.  Who  first 
sounded  the  knell  of  division,  and  declared  that  it 
would  be  impossible  longer  to  remain  under  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ? Not  the 
majority.^''  y 

On  the  other  hand,  in  view  of  the  general  facts,  as 
they  were  viewed  by  the  Southern  delegates,  there 
was  something  in  their  contention  that  their  connec- 
tion with  an  antislavery  Church  would  interfere  with 
their  work  in  the  South  where  slavery  dominated. 

To  remain  in  the  Church  would  be  to  be  ruled  by  a 
body  which  was  strongly,  and  increasingly,  antislavery 
in  sentiment  and  action.  They  would  be  compelled  to 
conform  to  the  rules  and  regulations  and  if  they  con- 
formed then  they  would  become  unpopular,  unaccept- 
able, and  undesirable  in  the  South  where  they  lived 
and  in  which  section  slavery  was  paramount. 

On  that  point  the  Southern  delegates  stated  a plain 
fact.  There  was  an  “ irrepressible  conflict  ” and  their 
section  was  mainly  on  one  side,  as  the  section  from 
which  the  majority  delegates  came  was  overwhelm- 
ingly on  the  other. 

Liviug  among  slaveholders  the  Southern  delegates 


THE  SOUTHERN  WITHDRAWAL 


C9 


could  be  more  popular,  have  more  influence,  and  secure 
what  was  called  greater  success  if  they  were  pro- 
slaveiy,  or,  at  least,  not  antislavery  in  their  senti- 
ments. On  the  other  hand,  if  they  stood  for  the 
sentiments  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and 
remained  in  the  South  they  could  be  martyrs.  So 
they  chose  to  disavow  the  attitude  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  to  dissolve  all  connection  with  it, 
and  to  establish  a Church  South. 

Under  the  circumstances  it  can  be  seen  how  some  in 
the  General  Conference  would  not  oppose  their  going 
off  if  they  wished  to  do  so,  but  the  Church  was  not 
divided  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  or  by  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Those  who  resolved  to 
go  out  divided  themselves  from  the  Church. 

It  is  an  error  to  think  that  all  the  ministers  and  mem- 
bers of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  south  of  Mason 
and  Dixon’s  Line  withdrew  from  that  Church  to  enter 
the  Church  South,  or  to  suppose  that  all  in  slave  terri- 
tory withdrew  from  the  old  Church.  Either  supposi- 
tion is  an  error  and  far  from  harmony  with  the  facts. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  continued  south  of 
the  line  which  then  marked  the  boundary  between  what 
was  called  free  and  what  was  called  slave  territory. 
Thus  the  Philadelphia  Conference,  which  did  not  with- 
draw, not  only  took  in  part  of  Pennsylvania,  but  also 
embraced  the  State  of  Delaware,  the  Eastern  Shore  of 
Maryland,  and  the  Eastern  Shore  of  Yirginia,  the  latter 
three  sections  being  slave  territory,  and,  so,  the  Balti- 
more Conference,  which  in  its  entirety  remained  in  the 
old  Church,  took  in  Maryland,  which  was  slave  terri- 
tory, and  its  southern  boundary  extended  to  the  Rap- 
pahannock River  in  Yirginia,  all  of  which  was  slave 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


YO 

territory.  In  the  same  way  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  remained  in  Western  Virginia,  and  in  other 
Southern  sections  where  slavery  still  continued. 

The  bulk  of  the  slave  section,  however,  was  embraced 
in  and  by  the  new  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
the  largest  body  that  ever  withdrew  from  the  original 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 


YIII 


THE  FIEST  DELEGATE  FEOM  THE  CHTJECH 
SOUTH 

The  major  part  of  the  Southern  Conferences 
having  withdrawn  and  formed  an  independent 
Church,  there  were  now  two  Methodist  Epis- 
copal bodies,  each  having  a separate  government,  but 
both  governments  having  a common  form  of  polity, 
their  books  of  Discipline  being  very  much  alike,  as  the 
new  Church  carried  over  from  the  old  its  various  forms, 
laws,  and  usages. 

Each  Church  had  its  own  General  Conference  which 
met  quadrennially.  The  old  Church  kept  up  its  regu- 
lar order  and  the  new  Church  took  the  mid-year  in  the 
old  quadrennium.  So  the  new  Church  held  its  first 
General  Conference  in  1846  and  the  old  Church,  retain- 
ing its  order,  followed  in  1848,  and  so  it  has  continued. 

The  new  Church,  being  intended  for  the  South,  sig- 
nificantly used  that  geographical  term,  indicating  di- 
rection and  location,  in  forming  its  title,  and  so  called 
their  organization  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  while  the  old  Church,  continuing  its  existence 
without  change,  naturally  continued  the  original  title, 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

The  general  understanding  was  that  the  Church 
South  was  for  the  South,  and  that  it  would  limit  itself 
to  the  South,  but  not  have  the  whole  South,  for  Confer- 

71 


Y2 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


ences  belonging  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
projected  into  the  South  and  embraced  considerable 
Southern  and  slave  territory.  Church  South  author- 
ities entered  and  claimed  territory  that  was  claimed  by 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  in  the  early  years 
there  was  considerable  contention  between  the  two 
Churches.  After  this  conflict  had  gone  on  for  about  a 
year  the  first  General  Conference  of  the  Church  South 
met  in  1846  and,  towards  the  latter  part  of  its  session, 
decided  to  send  a delegate  to  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  which  was  to  meet 
in  1848.  He  could  not  be  a member  of  that  body  but 
he  could  in  some  sense  stand  for  the  Church  South. 

This  looked  like  fraternity  in  form  at  least,  but  this 
appointment  led  to  an  impressive  incident  in  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  General  Conference  of  1848.  This  body 
was  opposed  to  the  interpretations  the  Church  South 
had  placed  upon  certain  acts  of  the  General  Conference 
of  1844  and  was  equally  opposed  to  certain  actions  of 
the  Church  South  which  seemed  to  grow  out  of  the 
said  interpretations  and  inferences  drawn  therefrom. 

The  delegates  in  the  General  Conference  of  1848  felt 
that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  being  wronged 
in  various  particulars,  that  the  interpretations  of  the 
Church  South  were  not  justified  by  the  exact  facts  and 
conditions  in  1844,  that  certain  things  claimed  to  have 
been  done  by  the  General  Conference  of  that  year  had 
never  been  legally  consummated  by  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  or  by  the  fulfillment  of  suggested 
contingencies  on  the  part  of  the  South,  while  other 
things  that  some  claimed  were  utterly  unconstitutional. 
For  these  and  other  reasons  the  General  Conference  of 
1848  repudiated  certain  interpretations  and  inferences 


FIRST  DELEGATE  FROM  THE  SOUTH  73 


and  declared  certain  actions  of  the  General  Conference 
of  1844:  to  be  null  and  void. 

To  such  a General  Conference  having  such  pro- 
nounced opinions  and  in  the  exciting  and  confusing 
events  of  only  three  years  after  the  withdrawal  of  the 
thirteen  Southern  Conferences  and  the  creation  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  came  the  Reverend 
Dr.  Lovick  Pierce  who  had  gone  out  with  the  Church 
South. 

Doctor  Pierce  had  been  one  of  the  mighty  and  influ- 
ential Southern  men  in  the  General  Conference  of  1844, 
and  was  greatly  respected  by  both  sides  in  that  body. 
His  own  General  Conference  of  the  Church  South  had 
met  for  the  first  time  only  two  years  before  and  he 
now  appeared  in  its  interest  and  as  its  representative. 
On  the  third  day  of  May,  the  third  day  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1848,  instead  of  presenting  his  credentials, 
he  addressed  a personal  letter  “ To  the  Bishops  and 
Members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  General 
Conference  assembled.’’  He  was  too  well  informed  to 
style  it  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  JSTorth,  or  the 
Church  North,  or  the  Northern  Church,  for  there  never 
was  such  a Church  with  such  a title. 

In  this  letter  he  stated  that  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  had  appointed 
him  as  its  delegate  to  bear  “ the  Christian  Salutations  ” 
of  the  Church  South  and  to  convey  its  desire  that 
“ fraternal  relations  ” should  be  maintained  between 
both  bodies,  and  to  make  the  offer  and  that  it  be  ac- 
cepted. Then  the  letter  says:  “The  acceptance  or 
rejection  of  this  proposition,  made  by  your  Southern 
brethren,  is  entirely  at  your  disposal;  and,  as  my 
situation  is  one  of  painful  solicitude  until  this  question 


74 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


is  decided,  you  will  allow  me  to  beg  your  earliest  atten- 
tion to  it.” 

It  seemed  scarcely  tactful  at  that  moment  to  suggest 
that  there  might  be  a rejection  of  the  proffer,  and  the 
intimation  he  makes  that  there  could  be  any  question 
was  calculated  to  make  it  an  issue. 

That  he  should  be  anxious  or  nervous  about  the 
matter  at  such  an  early  stage  when  the  General  Con- 
ference had  hardly,  or  barely,  completed  its  organiza- 
tion, seems  rather  remarkable.  That  he  should  thus 
in  the  initial  period  of  the  session  express  “ painful 
solicitude  ” and  beg  the  “ earliest  attention  ” seems  to 
indicate  an  undue  desire  to  put  the  Conference  on 
record  in  a hasty  action.  That  he  is  seeking  a formal 
and  permanent  record  is  shown  by  the  language  of  the 
next  and  last  paragraph  of  the  letter,  as  follows : 
“ And  I would  further  say,  that  your  reply  to  this 
communication  will  most  gratify  me  if  it  is  made 
officially,  in  the  form  of  resolutions.” 

As  he  was  not  presenting  his  credentials  at  that  time, 
it  should  have  seemed  more  judicious  not  to  have  raised 
any  doubt  as  to  the  character  of  the  action  of  the  Con- 
ference or  the  form  of  such  action  but  to  have  simply 
notified  the  Conference  of  his  presence,  or  if  he  said 
anything  further  to  have  assumed  that  the  Conference 
would  give  him  a favorable  reception. 

The  very  form  of  the  letter  was  likely  to  start 
suspicion,  put  some  on  their  guard,  and  provoke 
inquiry. 

The  first  and  second  days  of  the  session  had  been 
taken  up  almost  entirely  with  organization,  the  for- 
mation of  committees,  and  the  reception  of  memorials, 
and  the  same  was  true  of  the  third  day,  the  day  when 


FIRST  DELEGATE  FROM  THE  SOUTH  Y5 


Doctor  Pierce  wrote  and  presented  his  letter  to  the 
Conference.  No  statement  had  been  made  to,  and  no 
discussion  had  taken  place  on  the  difficulties  that  had 
arisen  during  the  previous  three  years  between  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Church  South. 
It  would  seem  that  the  great  Doctor  might  have 
selected  a happier  moment  for  the  presentation  of  him- 
self and  the  letter,  though  he  may  have  calculated  that 
it  was  better  for  him  to  enter  before  the  discussion  of 
the  difficulties  could  be  reached,  but  it  might  be  inter- 
preted as  an  effort  to  bring  on  the  discussion. 

Whatever  may  have  been  its  purpose,  it  would  seem 
that  the  presentation  of  the  letter  at  such  an  early  day 
did  rush  the  Conference  into  a response  before  it  was 
entirely  ready  to  act  with  deliberation. 

Doctor  Pierce’s  letter  having  been  read  to  the  Con- 
ference, it  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  State 
of  the  Church.  The  letter  was  read  and  referred 
towards  the  close  of  the  session  of  the  third  day  and 
the  report  of  the  Committee  on  this  matter  was  pre- 
sented early  on  the  fifth  day,  thus  giving  a little  over 
a single  day  for  its  preparation.  The  Committee 
recommended  the  adoption  of  the  following : 

“Whereas,  a letter  from  Rev.  L.  Pierce,  D.D.,  dele- 
gate of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  pro- 
posing fraternal  relations  between  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
Souths  has  been  presented  to  this  Conference,  and 
whereas,  there  are  serious  questions  and  difficulties 
existing  between  the  two  bodies,  therefore, 

“ Resolved^  That  while  we  tender  to  the  Rev.  Doctor 
Pierce  all  personal  courtesies,  and  invite  him  to  attend 
our  sessions,  this  General  Conference  does  not  consider 


76 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


it  proper,  at  present,  to  enter  into  fraternal  relations 
with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.” 

In  this  no  discourtesy  to  Doctor  Pierce  was  intended. 
On  the  contrary  the  proposition  was  to  extend  to  him 
“ all  personal  courtesies  ” and  to  admit  him  to  the 
sessions  of  the  General  Conference.  The  trouble  was 
with  the  “serious  questions  and  difficulties  existing 
between  the  two  bodies,”  and  not  with  Doctor  Pierce 
himself. 

These  difficulties,  indeed,  in  their  view  were  serious 
enough.  This  General  Conference  held  that  the  Church 
South  had  gone  outside  of  its  own  boundaries  and  tres- 
passed upon  territory  occupied  by  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  and,  by  these  and  other  acts,  had  vitiated 
its  own  understanding  of  the  action  of  1844.  The 
Conference  also  held  that  the  Church  South  had  taken 
property  which  rightfully  belonged  to  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  and  to  this  Conference  had  come,  be- 
fore Doctor  Pierce’s  letter  was  read,  memorials  and  com- 
plaints from  Arkansas,  Missouri,  and  Kentucky,  “ asking 
redress  for  the  grievances  ” growing  out  of  these  move- 
ments. So  there  were  other  complaints  and  allegations 
to  the  effect  that  Churches  had  been  wrongfully  taken 
from  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and 
this  very  General  Conference  voted  that  “ The  pro- 
visions respecting  a boundary  have  been  violated  by 
the  highest  authorities  which  separated  from  us,  and 
thereby  the  peace  and  harmony  of  many  of  the  so- 
cieties on  our  southern  border  have  been  destroyed.” 

Of  course  the  other  side  held  a contrary  view. 
With  the  conflict  of  views  and  actions  there  were 
“ serious  questions  and  difficulties  ” which  the  Con- 
ference thought  should  be  settled  before  there  could 


FIRST  DELEGATE  FROM  THE  SOUTH  71 


be  “ fraternal  relations  ” between  the  two  bodies. 
Doctor  Pierce  presented  his  letter  before  these  ques- 
tions could  even  be  discussed. 

In  view  of  the  logic  of  the  situation,  the  Reverend 
John  A.  Collins,  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  moved 
“ to  amend,  so  that  the  consideration  of  the  report  be  de- 
layed until  the  questions  of  division  of  Church  property 
and  of  the  division  line  are  settled,”  but  this  motion 
was  laid  on  the  table. 

Various  interesting  motions  were  presented  and  lost, 
with  the  exception  of  one  offered  by  the  Reverend 
Joseph  S.  Tomlinson,  of  the  Ohio  Conference.  This 
was  a motion  to  amend  the  report  by  adding : “ Pro- 
vided, however,  that  nothing  in  this  resolution  shall  be 
so  construed  as  to  operate  as  a bar  to  any  propositions 
from  Doctor  Pierce,  or  any  other  representative  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  towards  the  settle- 
ment of  existing  difficulties  between  that  body  and 
this.” 

With  this  addition  and  qualification  the  report  was 
adopted. 

The  next  morning  the  intention  of  the  report  was 
further  elucidated  by  the  adoption  of  the  following : 
“ Resolved^  That  on  the  vote  of  yesterday,  laying  the 
motion  of  J.  A.  Collins,  inviting  Reverend  Doctor  Pierce 
within  the  bar,  on  the  table,  we  did  not  intend  to  ex- 
clude Doctor  Pierce,  but  believed  the  object  of  the 
amendment  to  be  fully  included  in  the  original  report,” 
and  the  Secretary  of  the  Conference  was  “ ordered  to 
furnish  Doctor  Pierce  forthwith  a copy  of  the  above 
resolution.” 

The  action  shows  that  the  General  Conference  of 
1848  wished  to  treat  Doctor  Pierce  with  courtesy  and 


Y8  AMERICAN  METHODISM 

therefore  invited  him  to  attend  its  sessions  and  to  have 
a seat  within  the  bar  which  was  a distinct  courtesy. 
Moreover  the  Conference  expressed  a willingness  to  re- 
ceive from  Doctor  Pierce,  or  any  other  representative 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  any  proposi- 
tions looking  towards  the  settlement  of  existing  diffi- 
culties between  the  two  Churches. 

What  the  General  Conference  further  said  was,  that, 
in  view  of  the  contentions  and  the  unsettled  difficulties, 
it  did  “ not  consider  it  proper,  at  present,  to  enter  into 
fraternal  relations  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South.”  The  question  was  not  as  to  Doctor  Pierce  but 
as  to  formal  fraternal  relations  with  the  other  Church. 
The  Conference  requested  Doctor  Pierce  to  remain  and 
sit  with  the  body,  and  also  to  present  propositions  tend- 
ing to  settle  the  difficulties,  and  the  implication  was 
that  when  the  difficulties  were  adjusted  the  Conference 
would  be  willing  to  establish  fraternal  relations. 

Apparently  the  Conference  hesitated  to  recognize 
Doctor  Pierce  so  as  to  establish  formal  fraternal  re- 
lations because  it  feared  that  that  would  be  regarded  as 
condoning  what  it  maintained  were  improper  actions  by 
representatives  of  the  Church  South,  and  as  accepting 
as  right  what  the  Conference  believed  was  wrong  in 
the  course  of  the  new  Church  in  the  South. 

Doctor  Pierce  did  not  present  any  proposition  in  re- 
gard to  the  difficulties  between  the  two  Churches  or 
their  settlement,  neither  did  he  avail  himself  of  the  in- 
vitation to  sit  within  the  bar  of  the  Conference.  He 
did  not  come  to  settle  difficulties  or  to  show  how  they 
might  be  settled.  He  came  to  have  himself  formally 
recognized  as  a formal  fraternal  delegate  with  all  that 
that  recognition  implied.  Not  receiving  that  kind  of  a 


FIRST  DELEGATE  FROM  THE  SOUTH  79 


formal  recognition,  he  seemed  to  regard  himself  as 
having  no  mission  to  promote  fraternity  and  bring  the 
two  bodies  together  or  into  harmony. 

So  on  the  9th  of  May,  about  four  days  after  the 
General  Conference  had  acted  on  his  case,  he  sent  to 
the  Conference  his  credentials  containing  the  statement 
of  his  appointment.  Why  his  credentials  were  with- 
held until  the  Conference  had  acted  seems  somewhat 
strange. 

Another  singular  thing  is  that  he  also  asked  for  a 
copy  of  his  letter  to  the  Conference,  and  the  Conference 
voted  that  a copy  be  furnished  him. 

One  very  striking  thing  in  this  whole  matter  is  the 
marked  difference  between  Doctor  Pierce’s  letter  to  the 
General  Conference  and  the  wording  of  the  credential 
given  him  by  the  General  Conference  of  his  Church. 

The  latter  document  reads  as  follows : 

‘‘Resolutions  passed  by  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  at  its  session 
held  in  Petersburgh,  Ya.,  on  May  23,  1846. 

“ On  motion  of  F.  E.  Pitts,  Resolved^  by  a rising  and 
unanimous  vote.  That  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce  be  and  is 
hereby  delegated  to  visit  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to  be  held  in  Pitts- 
burgh, May  1,  1848,  to  tender  to  that  body  the  Chris- 
tian regards  and  fraternal  salutations  of  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

“ In  case  of  the  inability  of  Doctor  Pierce  to  attend 
the  session  of  the  aforesaid  Conference,  the  bishops  are 
respectfully  requested  to  appoint  a substitute. 

“ I certify  that  the  above  is  a true  transcript  from 
the  journal  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 


80 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Episcopal  Church,  South.  In  behalf  of  the  Board  of 
Bishops, 

“Joshua  Soule,  Chairman. 

“ Pittsburgh.^  May  J,  18^8.'^^ 

This  credential  clearly  states  that  Doctor  Pierce  was 
sent  simply  to  tender  “ the  Christian  regards  and 
fraternal  salutations  ” of  the  General  Conference  of  the 
new  Church,  but  Doctor  Pierce’s  letter  implied  the 
formal  establishment  of  a “ fraternal  relation,”  and 
contained  a challenge  to  accept  or  reject  the  proposi- 
tion, and  a practical  demand  that  “ the  acceptance  or 
rejection  ” be  “ made  officially,  in  the  form  of  resolu- 
tions.” The  form  of  a challenge  that  should  bring  a 
formal  and  binding  public  record  in  writing  runs 
through  the  entire  record.  The  Conference  was  to  be 
put  to  a test  and  asked  to  make  a fraternal  alliance  at  a 
time  when  there  were  “ serious  questions  and  difficulties 
existing  between  the  two  bodies.”  That  was  the  effort 
of  the  good  Doctor. 

The  tone  of  the  letter  from  Doctor  Pierce  is  very 
different  from  the  credential  giving  the  action  and  in- 
structions of  the  Church  South  General  Conference. 
All  the  credential  directed  and  authorized  Dr.  Lovick 
Pierce  to  do  was  “ to  tender  to  that  body  [the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  General  Conference]  the  Christian  regards 
and  fraternal  salutations  of  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,”  but  the 
Doctor  in  his  letter  raised  an  issue  and  demanded  that 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  take  an  attitude  and  commit  itself  by  a binding 
action  in  a certain  form  and  that  it  be  duly  recorded  in 
the  transactions  of  the  body.  Doctor  Pierce  sought  to 


FIRST  DELEGATE  FROM  THE  SOUTH  81 


gain  a diplomatic  point  and  to  secure  the  written  proof 
thereof  which  were  very  different  purposes  from  the 
simple  authorization  of  the  credentials  from  his  Gen- 
eral Conference. 

All  they  instructed  and  empowered  him  to  do  was  to 
convey  Christian  regards  and  fraternal  salutations.  If 
he  had  presented  his  credentials  and  tendered  such 
fraternal  and  Christian  greetings  there  can  be  no  doubt 
the  General  Conference  would  have  courteously  heard 
him.  This  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  the  Conference 
extended  courtesies  to  him,  asking  him  to  be  present  at 
the  sessions,  to  have  a seat  inside  the  bar,  and  to 
present  propositions  that  might  tend  to  diminish  the 
differences  and  to  harmonize  the  two  Churches. 

Unfortunately  Doctor  Pierce  did  not  introduce  him- 
self with  his  credentials,  but  began  with  his  own  per- 
sonal letter  and  the  General  Conference  was  compelled 
to  take  action  without  having  seen  the  credentials, 
which  contained  his  authorization  and  instruction,  and, 
apparently,  without  any  very  distinct  knowledge  that 
there  was  such  a credential.  Doctor  Pierce  presented 
his  personal  letter  on  the  third  day  of  the  Conference 
but  did  not  present  his  credentials  until  the  ninth  day, 
and  then  with  seeming  reluctance,  because  one  member 
in  the  discussion  had  alluded  to  it,  he  had  promised  it, 
and  the  Conference  “ ought  to  see  it.”  It  should  have 
been  presented  to  the  Conference  at  the  very  begin- 
ning and  before  it  took  any  action,  and  then  it  would 
have  known  what  he  had  been  sent  to  do  and  he  might 
have  conformed  strictly  to  his  instructions.  If  this  had 
been  done  subsequent  misinterpretations,  misunder- 
standings, and  unintentional  misrepresentations  might 
have  been  avoided. 


82 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


It  may  seem  also  a little  singular  that  the  credentials 
bear  the  date,  “ Pittsburgh,  May  4, 1848,”  the  day  after 
the  Doctor  presented  his  own  letter,  and  the  day  before 
the  General  Conference  took  action  in  regard  to  the  re- 
quest in  Doctor  Pierce’s  letter.  How  a document  agreed 
upon  <‘in  Petersburgh,  Ya.,  on  May  23,  1846  ” and 
signed  by  Bishop  Soule  should  be  dated  Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania,  where  the  General  Conference  was  meet- 
ing, and  on  “ May  4,  1848  ” when  this  Conference 
was  in  session,  is  not  perfectly  clear,  though  there  may 
be  an  explanation. 

Doctor  Pierce,  on  the  same  day  that  he  presented  his 
credentials,  also  sent  the  following  letter  : 

“ ‘ the  Bishops  and  Members  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church : 

“ ‘ Reverend  and  Dear  Brethren, — I have  received 
two  extracts  from  your  journal  of  the  4th  and  5th  in- 
stant. From  these  extracts  I learn  you  decline  receiv- 
ing me  in  my  character  as  the  accredited  delegate  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  only  invite 
me  to  a seat  within  the  bar,  as  due  to  me  on  account  of 
my  private  and  personal  merits.  These  considerations 
I shall  appreciate,  and  will  reciprocate  them  with  you 
in  all  the  private  walks  of  Christian  and  social  life. 
But  within  the  bar  of  the  General  Conference  I can 
only  be  known  in  my  official  character. 

“ ‘ You  will  therefore  regard  this  communication  as 
final  on  the  part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South.  She  can  never  renew  the  offer  of  fraternal  re- 
lations between  the  two  great  bodies  of  Wesleyan 
Methodists  in  the  United  States.  But  the  proposition 
can  be  renewed  at  any  time,  either  now  or  hereafter,  by 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  And,  if  ever  made 
upon  the  basis  of  the  Plan  of  Separation,  as  adopted  by 
the  General  Conference  of  1844,  the  Church  South  will 
cordially  entertain  the  proposition. 


FIRST  DELEGATE  FROM  THE  SOUTH  83 


“ ‘ With  sentiments  of  deep  regard,  and  with  feelings 
of  disappointed  hope,  I am,  yours  in  Chiistian  fellow- 
ship, 

“ ‘ L.  PlEKCE, 

“ ‘ Delegate  from  the  M.  E.  Church,  South. 

“ ‘ Pittsburgh,  May  8,  ISJiS?  ” 

Taking  all  these  facts  together,  with  this  letter  as  a 
climax,  the  incident  impresses  one  with  the  idea  that 
the  good  Doctor  came  determined  to  force  an  issue  and 
expecting  a conflict.  Even  a superficial  consideration 
makes  one  feel  that  Doctor  Pierce,  the  old  warrior, 
came  with  the  desire,  if  not  a plan,  to  score  a diplo- 
matic and  controversial  point,  rather  than  to  win  the 
Conference  and  to  remove  the  difficulties. 

So  before  he  presented  his  credentials  he  made  an 
issue  over  his  own  personal  letter  which,  to  say  the 
least,  did  not  reflect  the  exact  form  of  the  authoriza- 
tion in  his  credentials,  and  compelled  the  Conference  to 
act,  not  on  the  wording  in  the  action  of  his  own  Gen- 
eral Conference,  but  on  a different  issue  which  he  stated 
in  his  own  letter. 

His  parting  letter  was  the  climax  of  a most  singular 
procedure  on  the  part  of  a man  of  very  decided  ability. 
An  average  man  would  have  presented  his  credentials 
and  waited  the  pleasure  of  the  Conference  to  fix  a time 
when  he  could  be  properly  received  without  interference 
with  the  necessary  business,  and,  when  he  spoke,  he 
would  have  followed  his  instructions  and  presented 
“ the  Christian  regards  and  fraternal  salutations  ” of 
the  body  he  represented.  Doctor  Pierce,  however,  did 
not  follow  this  course  but  substituted  his  own  letter  and 
raised  an  issue  that  was  not  specified  in  the  credentials, 
and  forced  the  Conference  to  meet  that  issue,  when  it 


84 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


had  hardly  completed  its  organization,  and  had  had  no 
time  to  discuss  the  difficulties  which  had  disturbed  both 
Churches. 

For  the  Doctor  to  say  that  the  General  Conference 
had  refused  to  receive  him  as  an  accredited  delegate  ” 
is  very  peculiar,  for  the  General  Conference  of  1848  did 
not  decline  to  receive  him  as  a delegate,  but  in  its  action 
speaks  of  him  as  ‘‘  delegate  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South.”  It  did  more  than  “only  invite  (him) 
to  a seat  within  the  bar,”  for  it  opened  the  way  for  him 
to  speak,  and  invited  him  as  a “ representative  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,”  to  present  “ any 
propositions”  “towards  the  settlement  of  existing 
difficulties  ” between  the  two  bodies.  What  a great 
opportunity  it  was  for  a man  and  a minister  of  his 
ability  to  offer  suggestions  of  amity  and  to  explain 
away  misunderstandings ! Alas ! he  did  not  avail  him- 
self of  this  opportunity,  and,  indeed,  he  does  not  seem 
even  to  have  attempted  to  convey  to  the  Conference 
“the  Christian  regards  and  fraternal  salutations”  of 
his  own  General  Conference,  excepting  in  the  brief 
reference  in  his  letter  on  the  third  day  of  this  Con- 
ference, where  he  says  he  was  appointed  to  bear  “ the 
Christian  salutations  ” of  his  Church,  but  it  does  not 
appear  that  he  made  any  attempt  to  do  so,  and  the 
General  Conference  did  not  know  the  contents  of  the 
credentials  until  the  day  he  wrote  his  valedictory 
epistle. 

The  General  Conference  of  1848,  in  answer  to  the 
issue  Doctor  Pierce  had  raised  in  his  personal  letter, 
did  not  say  it  did  not  want,  or  never  would  have, 
fraternal  relations  with  the  Church  South,  but  that 
owing  to  “serious  questions  and  difficulties  existing 


FIRST  DELEGATE  FROM  THE  SOUTH  85 


between  the  two  bodies,”  it  did  “not  consider  it 
proper,  at  present^  to  enter  into  fraternal  relations,”  the 
fair  inference  being  that  it  would  not  be  unwilling  if 
these  disturbing  questions  were  settled.  The  General 
Conference  gave  Doctor  Pierce  an  opportunity  then 
and  there  to  help  settle  them,  but  he  made  no  effort  to 
do  so. 

Evidently  Doctor  Pierce  was  not  there  to  admit 
there  were  any  diflSculties  to  be  settled  or  to  attempt 
their  [adjustment  in  any  way.  He  was  there  to  raise 
an  issue  and  to  commit  the  General  Conference  on  that 
issue.  This  may  have  been  the  part  of  a tactician  for 
his  side  but  it  was  not  the  way  to  produce  peace  and 
harmony. 

The  Conference,  doubtless,  felt  that  to  commit  itself 
to  such  a fraternal  alliance  as  the  Doctor  suggested 
would  be  an  acknowledgment  that  there  were  no 
“ serious  questions,”  and  that  the  Church  South  was 
right  in  its  interpretations  and  acts,  a concession  the 
General  Conference  felt  it  could  not,  with  its  convic- 
tions, righteously  make. 

In  the  closing  part  of  his  farewell  letter  Doctor 
Pierce  has  what  sounds  like  an  imperial  ultimatum,  to 
the  effect  that  there  never  can  be  fraternal  relations 
between  the  two  Churches  except  “ upon  the  basis  of 
the  Plan  of  Separation,  as  adopted  by  the  General 
Conference  of  1844.”  That  was  the  very  thing  that 
this  General  Conference  would  not  do  and  later  in  its 
session  it  declared  that  the  act  here  styled  the  “ Plan 
of  Separation  ” was  not  a plan  to  separate  the  Church, 
that  the  Church  never  agreed  to  the  action  called  by 
some  the  “ Plan  of  Separation,”  and  that,  whatever  it 
was,  it  was  null  and  void. 


86 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


The  other  part  of  the  ultimatum  may  or  may  not 
have  been  by  authority,  namely,  that  the  Church 
South  never  again  would  “ renew  the  offer  of  fraternal 
relations,”  but  that  the  offer  would  have  to  be  made 
by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  sounded  like  a 
final  judgment,  but  there  was  hope  of  a reopening,  and 
when  difficulties  were  settled  by  agreement,  by  the 
lapse  of  time,  or  by  other  circumstances  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  would  not  hesitate  to  propose  fraternal 
relations. 

Seventeen  years  of  an  interim  would  pass  before  that 
could  be  done,  but  the  time  would  come. 

In  passing,  it  will  be  noticed  that  both  Doctor  Pierce, 
in  his  letter,  and  the  first  of  the  General  Conferences 
of  the  Church  South  in  its  resolution  or  credential  for 
the  Doctor,  and  that  only  a year  after  the  formation 
of  the  Church  South,  refer  to  the  old  Church  as  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the  title  it  had  in  1844: 
and  from  the  beginning  of  the  denomination  in  1784. 
That  is  an  acknowledgment  that  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  of  1848  was  the  same  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  that  had  come  down  from  the  beginning.  It 
was  not  changed,  but  the  new  Church  in  the  same 
documents  is  styled  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  showing  that  it  was  different,  and  that  by  its 
accepted  title  it  proposed  to  be  for  a section  in  the 
Southern  part  of  the  country,  while  the  old  Church  was 
still  bearing  its  legal  title  ‘‘  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,”  and  not  the 
Church  North.  Those  who  made  the  Church  South 
withdrew  from  the  old  Church,  but  the  old  Church  re- 
mained the  same. 


IX 


EVENTS  FOLLOWING  THE  FOEMATION  OF  THE 
METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHUKCH,  SOUTH 

The  thirteen  Annual  Conferences  in  slave  ter- 
ritory stretching  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  hav- 
ing in  convention,  in  1845,  dissolved  their 
connection  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and 
established  a new  denomination  called  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  South,  a new  and  very  peculiar 
situation  developed  both  ecclesiastically  and  politically. 

Politically  the  distinction  between  the  South  and 
the  North  was  accentuated.  Ecclesiastically  the  prac- 
tical and  actual  situation  was  as  follows:  The  great 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  Methodistically  domi- 
nant in  the  Northern  part  of  the  country,  where  slavery 
did  not  exist,  and  also  extended  southward  and  in- 
cluded a considerable  section  of  slave  territory  in  the 
northern  part  of  which  there  was  much  free  sentiment 
and  there  was  found  a strong  attachment  to  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  notwithstanding  the  action  of 
the  General  Conference  of  1844  in  disapproving  of 
slaveholding  by  one  in  the  episcopacy.  Indeed  some 
of  the  strongest  supporters  of  that  action  were  from 
that  very  section,  and  some  of  them  insisted  on 
stronger  and  even  more  drastic  action  in  the  case  of 
the  bishop  who  had  come  into  the  possession  of  slaves. 

Coming  up  from  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  to  this  locality, 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  was  eccle- 

87 


88 


AMEEICAN  METHODISM 


siastically  in  practical  and  actual  control,  but,  at  what 
may  be  called  the  point  of  contact  between  the  then 
work  of  the  two  bodies,  there  was  a strip  of  territory 
running  through  a number  of  states  which  was  fre- 
quently alluded  to  as  the  “ Border,”  which  took  in 
slave  territory  but  in  which  the  people  had  mixed 
sentiments  as  to  the  two  Churches  and  the  occasion  of 
their  differences  on  the  matter  of  a bishop  holding  hu- 
man beings  in  the  form  of  servitude  called  slavery. 
Some  were  for  the  old  Church  and  some  were  for  the 
new,  so  that  in  this  belt  of  country  there  was  a degree 
of  confusion  and  friction  as  conflicting  claims  were  pre- 
sented and  disputed  and  new  alignments  were  taking 
place,  for  readjustments  had  to  be  made  as  preachers 
and  people  sought  to  connect  themselves  with  the  new 
organization  or  determined  to  remain  with  the  old. 

Notwithstanding  the  paramount  position  of  the 
Church  South  in  the  Southern  section  and  the  mixed 
conditions  on  the  “ Border,”  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  never  was  out  of  the  South.  A few  facts  of 
history  will  demonstrate  the  accuracy  of  this  statement. 
Thus,  immediately  after  the  thirteen  Annual  Confer- 
ences in  the  farther  South  had  organized  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  still  was  found  in  Delaware,  Maryland,  Vir- 
ginia, Kentucky,  Missouri,  and  other  sections  of  the 
South. 

In  the  Methodist  Episcopal  General  Conference  of 
1848,  the  next  following  that  of  1844,  and  the  creation 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  1845, 
boundaries  were  marked  for  the  Western  Virginia  and 
the  Missouri  Conferences.  The  Western  Virginia  was 
to  include  Western  Virginia  and  part  of  Maryland,  the 


EVENTS  FOLLOWING  CHURCH  SOUTH  89 


Missouri  was  to  include  Missouri  and  Arkansas  and  the 
territory  west  and  north  to  the  Rocky  Mountains,  not 
included  in  the  Iowa  Conference,  and  the  Oregon  and 
California  Mission  Conference,  embracing  Oregon,  Cali- 
fornia, and  New  Mexico  also  was  indicated.  These 
and  other  boundaries  make  it  plain  that  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  still  remained  in  the  South,  imme- 
diately after,  and  notwithstanding,  the  organization  of 
the  Church  South  in  1845. 

In  the  Methodist  Episcopal  General  Conference  of 
1852  there  were  delegates  from  the  Western  Virginia 
and  the  Missouri  Conferences  and  from  other  Confer- 
ences in  slave  territory,  and  in  this  General  Confer- 
ence the  boundaries  of  the  Kentucky  and  the  Arkansas 
Conferences  were  indicated. 

The  Kentucky  Conference  included  all  Kentucky  ex- 
cept that  which  was  in  the  Western  Virginia  Confer- 
ence, while  the  Arkansas  Annual  Conference,  which 
was  set  off  from  the  Missouri  Conference,  included 
Arkansas,  Texas,  part  of  Missouri,  and  part  of  New 
Mexico.  At  the  same  time  the  Missouri  Conference 
was  changed  to  include  most  of  Missouri  and  part  of 
the  Nebraska  Territory.  So  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  still  continued  in  the  South. 

In  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  held  in  1856  there  sat  delegates  from  West- 
ern Virginia,  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Arkansas,  and  other 
Annual  Conferences  that  extended  south  of  the 
Potomac  and  Ohio  Rivers. 

In  the  Methodist  Episcopal  General  Conference  of 
1860  which  met  nearly  a year  before  the  Civil  War, 
delegates  sat  from  the  Western  Virginia,  the  Kentucky, 
the  Missouri,  the  Arkansas,  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska, 


90 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


the  California,  and  from  other  Conferences  that  ex- 
tended into  the  South  and  far  into  slave  territory.  At 
that  time  the  California  Conference  embraced  the  State 
of  California,  the  Sandwich  Islands,  and  so  much  of 
the  territories  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah  as  lay  west  of 
the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska 
Conference  embraced  those  territories  at  that  part  of 
New  Mexico  and  Utah  which  lay  east  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains.  At  this  General  Conference  Kansas  was 
separated  from  Nebraska,  and  as  a Conference  was 
made  to  embrace  all  Kansas,  New  Mexico,  east  of  the 
Rocky  Mountains,  and  the  State  of  Texas  which  had 
been  in  the  Arkansas  Conference. 

Thus  is  it  seen  that  just  before  the  Civil  War  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  still  was  in  the  South, 
and,  west  of  the  Mississippi  River,  was  in  the  very  far 
South. 

In  brief,  it  never  was  out  of  the  South,  and  delegates 
representing  these  Southern  sections  sat  in  the  General 
Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  not 
only  in  1844,  but  also  in  every  General  Conference 
down  to  and  including  1860,  and  this  has  been  the  case 
ever  since,  and  more  numerously  as  the  years  have 
gone  on. 

However  in  these  years  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  did  not  operate  in  the  farther  South,  east  of 
the  Mississippi  River.  For  this  there  were  reasons  out- 
side of  any  paper  formulations  of  either  body.  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  regarded  as  unfriendly 
to  slavery  and  that  institution  made  a solid  barrier 
where  it  was  very  strongly  entrenched,  as  it  was  south 
of  the  northern  tier  of  the  Southern  States.  In  addi- 
tion, feeling  ran  high,  antagonisms  asserted  themselves, 


EVENTS  FOLLOWING  CHURCH  SOUTH  91 


and  dangers  threatened.  These  were  practical  diffi- 
culties that  prevented  the  Church  from  penetrating  the 
far  South  even  if  no  other  reasons  existed. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  however, 
in  the  meantime,  essayed  to  enter  and  occupy  what 
was  spoken  of  as  the  North  and  which  was  claimed 
and  occupied  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  held  in  1848,  complained  that  the  Church 
South  had,  since  its  organization  in  1845,  improperly 
entered  the  Ohio,  the  Pittsburgh,  the  Baltimore,  and 
the  Philadelphia  Annual  Conferences  which  had  not 
withdrawn  but  had  remained  in  the  old  Church.  That 
they  had  acted  improperly  the  representatives  of  the 
Church  South  denied  and  their  Church  continued  to 
push  northward  not  only  into  slave  but  also  into  free 
territory. 

In  only  about  sixteen  years  after  the  withdrawal  of 
the  thirteen  Southern  Annual  Conferences  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  their  formation  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  many  events  had 
occurred  which  vitally  affected  both  the  nation  and  the 
Church. 

Among  other  things  this  ecclesiastical  withdrawal 
was  followed  in  these  few  years  by  the  attempt  of  cer- 
tain Southern  States  to  withdraw  from  the  United 
States  and  to  establish  in  their  section  a new  and  inde- 
pendent nation. 

John  C.  Calhoun  is  said  to  have  foreseen  this  at  the 
time  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  Southern  Conferences, 
and  to  have  remarked  that  it  was  the  beginning  of  the 
dissolution  of  the  National  Union.  Henry  Clay,  an- 
other great  statesman,  expressed  his  regret  as  he  inter- 


92 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


preted  the  act  and  the  tendency  of  the  times,  and  per- 
ceived its  influence  upon  the  nation. 

The  result  was  that  the  country  was  plunged  into  the 
great  civil  war  between  the  said  Southern  States  and 
the  National  Government  of  the  United  States  of 
America. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  this  bloody,  expensive,  and 
exhausting  effort  was  to  divide  the  National  Union 
along  about  the  same  geographical  line  the  thirteen 
Southern  Conferences  claimed  when  they  withdrew 
from  union  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  This 
may  be  regarded  merely  as  a remarkable  coincidence, 
but  the  fact  is  interesting  to  note,  and,  in  both  cases, 
there  was  a common  factor,  namely,  the  local  existence 
of  slavery  and  that  which  went  with  it,  which  made  a 
divisive  force  as  against  the  free  section  and  the  free 
sentiment.  The  same  force  was  in  action  in  the  Church 
as  well  as  in  the  State  and  it  was  unfortunate  for  both, 
but  in  forming  judgments  we  must  take  into  account 
the  environments. 

Breaking  out  ‘in  1861,  the  war  continued  about  four 
years,  ending  in  1865  with  victory  for  the  union  forces 
and  the  unity  of  the  United  States  was  preserved  and 
perpetuated. 

Thus  from  1845  to  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  in  1865 
there  had  been  many  momentous  events  both  for  the 
nation  and  the  Church. 

In  the  short  period  of  twenty  years  there  had  been 
the  withdrawal  of  the  Southern  Conferences  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  formation  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  while  in  the  nation 
there  had  been  an  effort  to  withdraw  a section  of  the 
country  from  National  Union,  which  disunion  move* 


EVENTS  FOLLOWING  CHURCH  SOUTH  93 


ment  was  defeated  in  four  years  and  for  the  eternal 
benefit  of  that  very  section.  In  that  short  time,  only 
two-thirds  of  a single  generation,  these  and  many  other 
important  things  had  occurred. 

In  all  these  years  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
had  always  maintained  a very  direct  relation  to  the 
South.  It  had  never  been  out  of  the  South  but  had 
maintained  active  operations  in  that  part  of  the  coun- 
try, and  when  the  war,  with  its  devastation,  its  bitter- 
ness, and  its  suffering,  was  closing,  this  Church  of  the 
United  States  thought  of  the  South  and  considered 
whether  it  could  and  should  do  still  more  for  the  South- 
ern section  of  the  same  United  States  of  America. 


X 


EENEWED  ACTIVITY  BY  THE  METHODIST 
EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  IN  THE 
FAR  SOUTH 

WHEN  the  Civil  War  was  over  the  National 
Union  was  preserved  but  the  great  South 
was  impoverished.  This  important  section 
had  been  devastated  and  the  people  generally  had  lost 
their  possessions. 

Among  the  other  interests  the  Church  South  had 
suffered  so  severely  that  it  was  not  able  to  meet  the 
wants  of  the  Southern  section  in  its  post-bellum  condi- 
tion. 

On  this  point  there  is  clear  and  convincing  testimony 
from  the  Southern  side.  Thus  Bishop  McTyeire,  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  gives  a vivid  pic- 
ture of  the  sad  conditions  which  existed  in  the  South 
immediately  following  the  Civil  War.  In  his  “ History 
of  Methodism,”  published  in  1884,  he  says  : 

“ The  Church  South  shared  in  all  the  calamities  of 
the  long  and  unequal  conflict.  The  distresses  of  war 
were  intensified  by  the  impoverishment  and  confusion 
which  follow  invasion  and  defeat.  . . . Hundreds 

of  churches  were  burned,  or  dismantled  by  use  as  hos- 
pitals, warehouses,  or  stables.  College  endowments 
were  swept  away  and  the  buildings  abandoned.  An- 
nual Conferences  met  irregularly  or  in  fragments  ; the 
General  Conference  of  1862  was  not  held,  and  the  whole 

94 


ACTIVITY  IN  FAR  SOUTH 


95 


order  of  the  itinerancy  was  interrupted ; the  Church 
press  was  silent,  and  many  of  the  most  liberal  support- 
ers of  the  Church  and  its  institutions  were  reduced  to 
abject  want.  The  situation,  as  revealed  after  peace  was 
restored,  may  not  be  described.  Two  thousand  one 
hundred  and  ten  battles  had  been  fought,  and  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  lives  and  thousands  of  millions  of  prop- 
erty had  been  destroyed.”  * 

With  such  distressing  conditions  the  South  generally, 
but,  especially,  its  religious  work  needed  help,  and  the 
help  could  come  only  from  outside  the  South. 

There  was  pressing  need — wide-spread  and  deeply- 
seated  need — and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was 
best  able  to  meet  this  imperative  and  immediate  need, 
and  because  of  its  ability  it  became  its  duty  to  give  its 
aid. 

That  it  had  a fraternal  spirit  towards  the  distressed 
Church  in  the  South  is  demonstrated  by  financial  as- 
sistance rendered  in  time  of  great  stress  when  it  brought 
succor  to  missionaries  of  the  Church  South  in  a foreign 
country.  Bishop  McTyeire  himself  may  tell  the  story. 
He  says  : “ The  missionaries  in  China  had  been  cut  off 
from  all  communication  with  the  home  Board.  The 
drafts  in  their  hands  were  honored  by  the  indorsement 
of  the  Treasurer  of  the  Missionary  Society  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  at  New  York,  and  served 
their  uses  for  a time ; but  this,  of  course,  was  only  a 
temporary  relief,  leaving  a debt.  This  debt  was  hard 
to  meet  and  one  of  the  first  efforts  was  directed  to  it. 
The  lightest  sum  seemed  heavy  ; but  it  was  a pleasing 
instance  of  brotherly  kindness,  when  such  acts  were 

* Bishop  Holland  N.  McTyeire,  D.  D.,  “ A History  of  Methodism,” 
Nashville,  Tenn.,  1888,  p.  664. 


96 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


rare.  The  catholic-spirited  act  of  Dr.  Thomas  Carlton 
gave  an  intimation  of  what  many  others  felt  but  had  no 
opportunity  of  demonstrating.  Whatever  mitigates  the 
logic  of  war  is  a charity  to  the  human  race.”  * 

Of  course  Doctor  Carlton  acted  as  representative,  and 
under  the  authority,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Mis- 
sionary Society,  so  that  it  was  really  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  that  came  in  this  instance  to  the 
rescue  of  the  Church  South.  This  showed  no  antago- 
nism, but  a most  brotherly  spirit. 

As  has  been  seen,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
had  been  unduly  limited,  or  had  failed  to  do  its  full 
duty  in  one  section  of  the  country  during  the  twenty 
years  since  ISM  and  1845.  Circumstances  of  more 
than  one  kind  had  interfered  with  operations  in  the 
farther  South,  the  greatest  barrier  being  human  slavery 
and  a proslavery  sentiment  that  became  the  stronger 
and  more  intense  the  farther  the  South  was  penetrated. 

Now,  however,  the  war  had  caused  President 
Lincoln  to  issue  his  emancipation  proclamation  and 
slavery  had  been  destroyed. 

The  changed  and  distressing  conditions  in,  and  the 
needs  of,  the  South  attracted  attention,  and  had  at- 
tracted attention  even  before  the  close  of  the  war,  and 
many  minds  began  to  ask  what  could  be  done  to  help 
that  suffering  section. 

The  South  needed  help  in  many  ways  and  in  none 
more  than  in  lines  of  religious  work. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  able— and  best 
able — to  render  aid  to  that  part  of  the  country.  It 
knew  the  South  and  never  had  been  out  of  the  South. 
Further,  it  was  not  a sectional  Church.  It  was  not  the 
^ Bishop  McTyeire,  “ History  of  Methodism,”  p.  665. 


ACTIVITY  IN  FAK  SOUTH' 


97 


Northern  Church  or  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
North.  It  had  always  been  in  the  South  and  even 
where  slavery  was  found,  and  never  had  a limiting  title 
of  North,  or  East,  or  West.  There  was  a Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  but  the  old  Church  was  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America.  That  was  its  title  and  that  indicated  its 
field.  Sectionalism  had  been  destroyed  and  a non- 
sectional Church  could  go  anywhere.  Slavery  had 
disappeared  and  the  people  of  the  South  needed  assist- 
ance. So  it  was  believed  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  now  had  an  opportunity  and  a duty  to  extend 
its  work  throughout  the  entire  South. 

In  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  held  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia  in  May,  1864, 
movements,  looking  towards  the  return  of  that  Church 
to  the  farther  South,  were  inaugurated. 

In  their  Episcopal  Address  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1864,  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  said : 

“The  wall  of  partition  is  broken  down  by  that 
very  power  whose  dreadful  ministry  was  invoked  to 
strengthen  it.  And  now,  the  way  being  open  for  the 
return  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  it  is  but 
natural  that  she  should  reenter  those  fields  and  once 
more  realize  her  unchanged  title  as  ‘ The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States  of  America.’  ” 

The  bishops  also  called  attention  to  the  duty  of  the 
Church  to  reenter  the  entire  South. 

By  this  General  Conference  the  bishops  were  author- 
ized to  start  work  and  to  establish  Mission  Conferences 
in  the  farther  South. 

The  movement  was  not  welcomed  by  all  in  the 


98 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


South,  and  in  some  places  there  was  very  positive  op- 
position, but  while  there  was  antagonism  in  not  a few 
localities,  nevertheless  the  ministers  of  the  old  Church 
were  received  with  open  arms  in  many  directions. 

Only  twenty  years  had  passed  since  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  had  been  formed  and  claimed 
that  section,  and  numbers  of  old  members  were  found 
who  had  never  willingly  left  the  old  Mother  Church, 
and  there  were  some  who  might  have  said  that  when 
the  old  Church  left  them,  they  refused  to  become 
identified  with  the  new  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South. 

In  the  Alabama-Georgia  region,  for  example,  there 
were  preachers  and  people  who,  rather  than  join  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  when  they  found 
the  old  Church  was  not  accessible  to  them,  formed  a 
new  and  different  denomination  of  their  own.  They 
never  wanted  to  leave  the  old  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  others  were  like  them  in  this  feeling. 

In  West  Virginia,  and  in  the  mountains  and  valleys 
of  Eastern  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee  and  elsewhere, 
where  the  national  union  element  had  existed  in  con- 
siderable strength,  there  was  a strong  desire  for  their 
own  old  Church  or  the  Church  of  their  fathers  and 
their  mothers,  and  which  belonged  to  the  entire  nation. 

Soon  congregations  were  gathered,  churches  were 
formed,  and  Conferences  were  organized,  and  again  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  was  at  work  in  every  section  of  the  said 
United  States  in  harmony  with  its  name. 


XI 


THE  EIGHT  TO  PEEFOEM  EELIGIOUS  WOEK 
IN  THE  FAETHEE  SOUTH 

SOME  have  said  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  had  no  right  to  go  into  the  South  after 
the  Civil  War.  But  it  was  in  the  South  before 
the  Civil  War  and  never  had  been  out  of  the  South. 

Then,  perhaps,  the  qualification  is  made  that  the  ob- 
jection is  to  the  going  of  that  Church  into  the  farther, 
and  the  far.  South.  Naturally  one  would  ask,  If  the 
Church  has  always  been  in  the  South  why  should  it 
not  go  anywhere  and  everywhere  in  the  South  ? 

Further,  in  view  of  the  needy  conditions  in  the  South 
after  the  war  one  might  truly  say  that  the  question  was 
not  of  mere  right  to  enter  the  farther  South,  but  one 
of  imperative  duty,  in  view  of  the  distressing  conditions 
in  that  section  and  the  ability  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  to  render  religious  assistance.  Such  con- 
ditions and  such  ability  to  help  should  override  any 
mere  technicality  that  any  one  might  thrust  in  the  way. 

Nevertheless  some  have  persistently  declared  that 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  no  right  to  pene- 
trate and  work  in  the  South  after  the  Civil  War. 

Such  a suggestion  must  seem  strange  to  one  who  re- 
gards the  United  States  of  America  as  a free  country 
where  individuals  and  religious  organizations  are  un- 
derstood to  have  liberty  to  move  and  operate  in  any 
section  according  to  their  pleasure. 

99 


100 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


One  therefore  is  naturally  impelled  to  inquire  why 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America  had  not  as  much  right  to  enter  and  carry 
on  its  operations  in  the  South,  and  the  far  South,  as  it 
had  to  enter  and  carry  on  its  operations  in  the  West 
and  Southwest,  or  in  any  other  portion  of  the  United 
States. 

Some  may  answer,  in  the  first  place,  that  there 
were  two  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches,  namely,  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  North,  and  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  that  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  North,  was  limited  to  the  North,  while  the 
South  belonged  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South.  That  would  be  an  answer  if  it  were  true,  but 
it  is  not  correct.  It  was  not  correct  at  the  close  of  the 
Civil  War  and  it  never  was  true. 

It  is  true  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  was  in  the  South,  and  it  had  voluntarily  taken 
the  limiting  title  South,  that  it  had  put  a limitation 
upon  itself  by  the  very  use  of  that  qualifying  word, 
and  that  it  had  voluntarily  taken  the  limiting  title 
with  the  evident  purpose  of  working  in  the  South,  but 
there  was  no  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  North, 
which  had  taken  such  a sectional  title  with  such  a sec- 
tional purpose,  or  for  any  other  purpose. 

There  never  had  been,  as  there  is  not  now,  a Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  with  the  qualifying  and  limiting 
title  North  or  Northern. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  organized  in  1784, 
never  changed  its  title,  but  came  down  the  generations 
with  the  old,  and  original  title  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  America,  or  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
which  were  synonymous  phrases.  From  the  beginning 


RIGHT  IN  FARTHER  SOUTH 


101 


it  remained  unchanged.  It  was  both  in  and  for  the 
United  States  of  America  without  sectional  limitation. 
So  there  never  was  a Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
North,  though  after  the  lapse  of  about  sixty  years 
there  did  come  into  existence  a Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South. 

But,  in  the  second  place,  some  have  said  that  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  no  right  to  go  into  the 
South,  because  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  held  in  1844,  divided  the  Church, 
and  so  divided  the  denomination  that  it  gave  the 
Southern,  or  slaveholding  section  to  the  Conferences  in 
the  South,  which  became  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  while  it  gave  the  Northern,  or  non- 
slaveholding section  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
So,  it  has  been  reasoned  that,  as  the  General  Conference 
of  1844  did  thus  sever  the  Church  and  so  allot  the  free 
and  slave  sections  that,  therefore,  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  was  restricted  to  the  North  and  had  no 
right  to  enter  the  South. 

But  the  General  Conference  of  1844  did  not  so  divide 
the  Church,  and  did  not  divide  it  at  all  in  any  way. 

There  was  no  division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  by  the  mutual  consent  of  those  concerned,  so 
that  the  one  original  Church  ceased  to  be  while  from 
the  old  trunk  two  Churches  branched  off. 

The  General  Conference  of  1844  did  not  turn  over 
all  the  slaveholding  section  to  what  became  known  as 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  all  the 
free  section,  without  any  of  the  slaveholding  portion, 
to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

It  is  true  that  all  the  territory  embraced  by  the 
Church  South  was  within,  but  did  not  cover  all,  the 


102 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


slaveholding  section,  but  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  1841  and  1845  and  on  not  only  embraced  all 
the  free  territory  but  also  occupied  slave  territory  in 
the  South  and  it  remained  in  the  South  from  1844 
down  to,  through,  and  after  the  Civil  War,  while  sla- 
very existed,  after  its  destruction,  and  is  in  the  same 
section  at  the  present  time.  It  is  evident,  therefore, 
that  there  could  have  been  no  such  territorial  division 
as  some  have  assumed.  So  no  argument  could  be 
based  on  that  to  bar  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
from  the  South. 

The  General  Conference  of  1844  did  not  divide  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  into  two  bodies,  neither 
did  it  set  off  any  part  of  its  territory  for  the  exclusive 
exploitation  of  an  independent  body  made  up  from  its 
own  ministry  and  membership  and  to  the  exclusion  of 
itself.  In  other  words  it  did  not  sever  the  Southern 
section  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The 
General  Conference  of  1844  did  not  divide  the  Church. 
Indeed  it  had  no  legal  right  to  do  so,  or  to  set  off  any 
part  of  the  United  States  of  America,  for  there  was  no 
law  that  gave  the  General  Conference  power  to  destroy 
itself  or  the  Church,  or  any  part  thereof.  It  was,  as  it 
is,  a body  with  limited  powers,  acting  within  restric- 
tions which  were  intended  to  preserve  the  General  Con- 
ference and  the  Church  and  to  prevent  the  General 
Conference  from  destroying  the  Church  in  whole  or  in 
part. 

So  the  General  Conference  of  1844  had  no  right  to 
divide  the  Church  or  to  set  off  any  part  of  it  within  the 
United  States  for  it  was  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America,  its  primal  territory 
and  habitat 


EIGHT  IN  FARTHER  SOUTH 


103 


As  a matter  of  fact  it  did  not  divide  the  Church,  and, 
so,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  come  down 
without  a break  in  its  continuity  from  the  beginning  to 
the  present  time,  with  its  unbroken  history,  its  continu- 
ous records,  and  its  unchanged  identity. 

The  General  Conference  of  1844  did  not  divide  the 
Church,  and  it  did  not  abandon  all  the  slave  terri- 
tory, or  pass  over  all  the  Southern  slaveholding  sec- 
tion to  what  became  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South. 

But,  one  asks,  was  there  not  something  said  about 
division  or  disunion  in  the  General  Conference  of  1844  ? 
Certainly  there  was.  Certain  Southern  delegates  inti- 
mated and  declared  that  there  would  be  a breaking 
away  from  the  old  Church,  but  the  General  Conference 
did  not  vote  for,  or  order,  disunion,  and,  if  it  had  done 
so,  its  action  would  have  been  null  and  void,  for  it  had 
no  authority  so  to  do. 

Something  was  said,  some  things  were  attempted,  and 
something  was  done,  but  there  was  not  the  division  of 
the  Church,  by  the  General  Conference,  as  some  poorly 
informed  persons  seem  to  have  inferred. 

In  brief,  this  is  the  history  : In  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1844,  after  many  days  of  discussion  involving 
the  question  of  human  slavery,  and  what  should  be  done 
with  the  bishop  who  held  slaves,  the  General  Confer- 
ence overwhelmingly  disapproved  of  the  act  of  the 
bishop  and  expressed  the  opinion  that  as  he  would  not 
be  acceptable  as  the  presiding  officer  in  all  of  the  Con- 
ferences on  that  account,  he  should  desist  from  the  per- 
formance of  his  episcopal  functions  until  he  relieved 
himself,  or  became  relieved  of,  that  which  acted  as  an 
impediment  and  incapacitated  him  from  acting  as  a 


104 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


bishop  everywhere,  which  self-relieving  it  was  thought 
he  could  accomplish  almost  any  time. 

In  view  of  the  expressed  opinion  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, fifty-one  of  the  delegates  presented  to  that  body 
what  was  called  a formal  and  written  “ Declaration  ” in 
which  they  declared  that  the  action  of  the  General 
Conference  in  regard  to  the  slaveholding  bishop  “ Must 
produce  a state  of  things  in  the  South  which  renders  a 
continuance  of  the  jurisdiction  of  this  General  Confer- 
ence over  these  [Southern]  Conferences  inconsistent  with 
the  success  of  the  ministry  in  the  slaveholding  states.” 

This  deliverance  pointed  to  a meditated  and  threat* 
ened  severance  of  relationship  on  the  part  of  signers  of 
the  “ Declaration  ” and  those  for  whom  they  spoke.  In 
other  words  it  was  an  announcement  of  the  severance 
of  persons  and  Annual  Conferences  in  “ slaveholding 
states  ” from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

To  this  “ Declaration  ” that  they  could  not  continue 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  the  intimation  that  they  would  withdraw  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the  General  Conference  of 
1844,  in  a formal  document,  responded  that  “in  the 
event  of  a separation,”  such  as  the  signers  of  the  “ Dec- 
laration ” had  indicated,  that  is  to  say,  not  a separation 
made  by  the  General  Conference,  but  one  made  by 
the  Southern  Conferences  or  the  parties  represented  in 
the  declaration  which  said  they  could  not  consistently 
remain  under  the  jurisdiction  of  this  General  Conference, 
or,  in  other  words,  under  and  in  connection  with  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the  General  Conference 
would  take  a certain  attitude  which  was  recited  in  the 
document  which  was  prepared  as  an  answer  to  the  said 
“ Declaration  ” that  they  could  not  continue  under  the 


RIGHT  IN  FARTHER  SOUTH 


105 


jurisdiction  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  which 
they  then  belonged. 

That  the  separation  was  not  one  made,  or  to  be 
made,  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  but  by  the  parties  represented  in  the 
“ Declaration,”  is  further  shown  by  the  statement  in 
the  response  : “ That  should  the  Annual  Conferences  in 
the  slaveholding  states  find  it  necessary  to  unite  in  a 
distinct  ecclesiastical  connection.”  ^ 

This  language  shows  that  the  separation  was  not 
made  in  or  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844:,  or  to 
be  made  by  that  body,  but  was  a possible,  not  certain, 
separation,  which  might  occur  subsequently  to  the 
General  Conference,  and,  if  it  did  occur,  would  be  the 
free  action  of  “ the  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slave- 
holding states  ” and  would  be  the  consummation  of  the 
threatened  act  of  the  Southern  delegates  from  slave- 
holding states,  as  plainly  indicated  in  the  “ Declaration  ” 
of  these  delegates  and  in  other  statements  made  in  the 
General  Conference  of  1844. 

This  General  Conference  did  not  make  a separation, 
or  division,  but  in  view  of  the  Declaration  ” and 
similar  oft-repeated  statements,  the  General  Conference 
stated  that,  if  the  said  Southern  Conferences  subse- 
quently did  do  what  their  delegates  declared  must  be 
the  case,  then  the  General  Conference  would  “ meet 
the  emergency  with  Christian  kindness  and  the  strictest 
equity,”  and  certain  things  were  particularized. 

In  other  words,  the  separating  or  dividing  was  not 
something  that  the  General  Conference  of  1844  did,  or 
would,  do,  but  some  contingent  thing  the  said  Southern 
Annual  Conferences  might  themselves  possibly  do  after 
the  General  Conference  of  1844  had  ceased  to  exist. 


106 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


That  the  separation  of  the  Southern  Conferences  was 
not  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  1844  appears  further 
from  the  fact  that  the  separation  was  not  made  in 
1844,  but  in  1845,  about  a year  after  the  adjournment 
of  that  General  Conference,  and  occurred  when  that 
General  Conference  was  not  in  existence. 

As  the  records  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  clearly  state,  the  separation  of  the  said  South- 
ern Conferences  was  made  ‘‘by  the  delegates  of  the 
several  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  slaveholding  states,  in  General  Conven- 
tion assembled,”  in  Louisville,  Kentucky,  which  con- 
vened on  the  first  day  of  May,  in  the  year  1845,  and 
continued  in  session  until  Monday  afternoon.  May 
19th  of  the  same  year. 

On  Saturday  morning.  May  17, 1845,  this  convention 
of  delegates  from  thirteen  Annual  Conferences  located 


in  slaveholding  states  deliberately,  and  entirely  on  their 
own  motion,  solemnly  declared  “ the  jurisdiction  hith- 
erto exercised  over  said  Annual  Conferences  by  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
is  entirely  dissolved ; and  that  said  Annual  Confer- 
ences shall  be,  and  they  are,  hereby  constituted  a sepa- 
rate ecclesiastical  connection  . . . to  be  known  by 

the  style  and  title  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South.” 

The  separation  or  division,  therefore,  was  manifestly 
not  made  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  or  by 
anybody  in  1844,  but  about  a year  after  that  General 
Conference  had  finally  adjourned  and  ceased  to  be,  the 
separation  was  made  by  representatives  of  these  South- 
ern Conferences,  assembled  in  Convention  in  1845.  It 


RIGHT  IN  FARTHER  SOUTH 


107 


was  this  Southern  Convention,  acting  beyond  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  outside  the  law,  that 
voted  to  dissolve  the  connection,  and  did  the  separat- 
ing, and  having  withdrawn  formed  a new  Church  for 
the  South. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  General  Conference  of  1844: 
did  not  divide  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  no 
other  body  divided  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
but  representatives  of  some  of  the  Southern  Annual 
Conferences  of  their  own  free  will  separated  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  thus  diminishing  the  bulk 
of  its  ministry  and  membership  but  leaving  the  original 
Church  intact  as  • to  its  history,  its  continuous  records 
from  the  beginning,  its  organism,  and  every  essential 
element  of  the  Church  prior  to  1845,  and  a few  minis- 
ters and  members,  or  many  members  and  ministers,  de- 
parting this  life,  or  departing  from  the  Church  of  1784 
and  1844,  did  not,  and  could  not,  destroy  or  modify  its 
identity.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  did  not 
divide  itself  or  destroy  itself  in  any  degree  or  in  any 
sense  whatsoever,  and  nobody  else  did. 

But,  in  the  third  place,  it  may  be  said,  as  it  has  been 
said,  that  the  General  Conference  of  1844  adopted  a 
“Plan  of  Separation,”  and,  therefore,  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  had  no  right  to  go  into  the  South. 

If  it  did  adopt  a plan  of  separation,  it  still  is  true 
that  that  General  Conference  did  no  separating  and 
proposed  no  separation. 

But  the  General  Conference  adopted  no  document 
that  called  itself  “ The  Plan  of  Separation  ” or  “ A 
Plan  of  Separation  ” or  that  used  the  phrase  “ a Plan 
of  Separation.”  That  phrase  has  been  used  by  individ- 
uals from  time  to  time,  by  some  because  they  wanted 


108 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


something  to  be  so  understood,  by  some  because  others 
had  used  the  phrase,  and,  farther,  by  some  who  did 
not  know  and  comprehend  all  the  facts  in  the  case. 
Colloquially  it  has  been  in  use  but  legally  it  did  not 
represent  a fact. 

There  was  no  act  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844 
that  made  a separation,  or  urged  a separation,  or  pro- 
posed a separation,  though  there  was  a paper  passed  in 
view  of  the  “ Declaration  ” that  certain  Conferences  in 
the  South  could  not  remain  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  that  it  was  threatened  that  a large  section 
of  the  South  would  go  out  from  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

In  its  answer  to  the  “ Declaration  ” the  General  Con- 
ference viewed  the  possibility  of  the  execution  of  these 
declarations  by  the  going  off  of  the  indicated  Annual 
Conferences  in  the  South,  considered  it  as  a contingency, 
and  not  a certainty,  saying  “ in  the  event  of  a separa- 
tion, a contingency  to  which  the  declaration  asks  atten- 
tion as  not  improbable.’’  The  answer  made  reply  to 
this. 

The  paper  did  not  call  itself  a “ Plan  of  Separation,” 
for  the  General  Conference  was  not  planning  a separa- 
tion. It  was  simply  meeting  the  aforementioned  “ Dec- 
laration ” that  looked  in  the  direction  of  the  withdrawal 
of  certain  Southern  Annual  Conferences. 

The  Journal  of  the  General  Conference  styles  it 
“ the  report  of  the  select  committee  of  nine,  on  the 
declaration  of  fifty-one  brethren  from  the  Southern 
Conferences,”  and  “the  report  of  the  committee  of 
nine.”  These  forms  were  used  when  it  was  taken  up 
on  the  eighth  day  of  June. 

This  report  did  not  divide  the  Methodist  Episcopal 


EIGHT  IN  FAETHER  SOUTH 


109 


Church  or  set  off  the  said  Conferences  in  the  slave- 
holding section,  or  advise  that  it  be  done,  so  that, 
strictly  and  fairly  speaking,  it  was  not  a plan  to 
separate  the  Church  into  two  parts  or  a plan  to  separate 
a part  of  the  Church  from  the  main  body,  and  the 
General  Conference  did  not  adopt  any  plan  to  separate. 

It  did  have  something  to  say  as  to  what  might,  or 
would,  be  if  others  should  separate  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  but  it  did  not  plan  to  separate  or 
plan  to  bring  about  a separation.  It  did  state  that  in 
view  of  the  “ contingency  ” which  had  been  pointed 
out,  and  “ in  the  eyent  of  a separation,”  not  made  or 
to  be  made  by  the  General  Conference,  but,  possibly, 
by  the  Annual  Conferences  “ in  the  slaveholding 
states,”  the  General  Conference  would  not  resort  to 
severe  measures,  and  enforce  legal  claims,  but  would 
“ meet  the  emergency  with  Christian  kindness  and  the 
strictest  equity,”  and  the  details  recited  were  marked 
evidences  of  “ Christian  kindness  ” and  a generous 
equity  which  went  to  the  very  extreme  of  generosity. 

But  the  General  Conference  did  not  desire  the 
threatened  separation,  did  not  make  it,  and  did  not 
approve  or  agree  to  it.  It  simply  dealt  with  a declara- 
tion that  others  would  have  to  separate  and  that  their 
separation  was  doubtless  inevitable. 

In  the  answer  the  General  Conference  of  1844  made 
to  the  declaration  of  the  Southern  delegates  looking 
towards  the  withdrawal  of  Conferences  in  the  “ slave- 
holding states  ” from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  no  separation  of  the  Church  is  de- 
clared or  decreed,  but  recognizing  the  declaration  as  to 
a withdrawal  of  some  Conferences'  in  slave  territory, 
the  General  Conference  said : “ That  should  the  An- 


110 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


nual  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  states  find  it  nec- 
essary to  unite  in  a distinct  ecclesiastical  connection, 
the  following  rule  shall  be  observed  with  regard  to  the 
northern  boundary  of  such  connection,”  and  there  fol- 
lowed certain  provisions  “ to  meet  the  emergency  with 
Christian  kindness  and  the  strictest  equity,”  as  the 
paper  stated. 

There  is  no  suggestion  that  the  General  Conference 
made  any  division,  but  if  there  was  any  separating  it 
would  be  done  by  the  Southern  Conferences  if  they  did 
“ unite  in  a distinct  ecclesiastical  connection,”  as  had 
been  intimated  in  the  declaration  and  in  various  re- 
marks, but  all  this  was  declared  to  be  “ a contingency,” 
and  as  such  it  might  never  occur. 

It  is  true  that  in  the  Louisville  Convention  of  1845, 
“ the  delegates  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences  ” 
“ in  the  slaveholding  states  ” did  speak  of  a “ plan  of 
separation.”  Thus  in  their  act  of  dissolution  they  said : 
‘‘  We,  the  delegates  of  said  Annual  Conferences,  acting 
under  the  provisional  plan  of  separation  adopted  by  the 
General  Conference  of  1844,  do  solemnly  declare,” 
etc.,  “ and  that  said  Annual  Conferences  shall  be,  and 
they  hereby  are  constituted,  a separate  ecclesiastical 
connexion,  under  the  provisional  plan  of  separation 
aforesaid.” 

These  delegates  said  that,  but  the  General  Conference 
of  1844  adopted  no  document  that  called  itself  a “plan 
of  separation,”  and  took  no  action  which  divided  the 
Church.  Colloquial  interpretations  no  matter  by  whom 
used  cannot  have  the  force  of  legal  phrases,  even  when 
they  are  subsequently  employed  in  a formal  resolution 
by  another  body.  That  there  was  some  confusion  of 
thought  amid  the  excitement  of  those  trying  months 


EIGHT  IN  FARTHER  SOUTH 


111 


may  be  conceded,  but  the  facts  show  that  the  General 
Conference  of  1844  did  not  plan  to  separate  any  part  of 
the  Church  and  that  it  did  not  divide  the  Church. 
The  separating  was  done  by  others  and  about  a year 
after  the  General  Conference  of  1844  had  ceased  to  be. 

Should  one,  in  the  fourth  place,  undertake  to  say  that 
the  General  Conference  of  1844  not  only  divided  the 
Church  into  two  parts  but  also  drew  a line  of  sepa- 
ration, which  was  Mason  and  Dixon’s  Line,  and,  conse- 
quently, the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  no  right 
to  go  into  the  South,  the  answer  is  that  this  also  is 
erroneous. 

First,  such  a phrase  as  the  “ line  of  separation  ” does 
not  appear  anywhere  in  the  answer  to  the  ‘‘  Declara- 
tion.” Secondly,  if  any  line  was  drawn  it  could  not 
have  been  Mason  and  Dixon’s  Line,  and  Mason  and 
Dixon’s  Line  was  not  mentioned  in  the  report  of  the 
committee  of  nine  or  anywhere  else  in  the  acts  of  the 
General  Conference.  If  there  was  any  line  it  could 
not  have  been  Mason  and  Dixon’s  Line  which  was  the 
boundary  between  Pennsylvania  which  was  free  and 
Maryland  where  slavery  was  found,  and  so  in  popular 
parlance  was  regarded  as  the  line  between  the  free 
North  and  the  slave  South,  but  the  General  Conference 
took  no  action  mentioning  Mason  and  Dixon’s  Line,  or 
indicating  it  as  a line  of  division  between  two  Churches 
or  to  be  the  line.  Maryland,  which  was  below  that 
line,  was  solidly  for  the  old  Church  and  some  of  the 
strongest  supporters  of  the  action  of  the  General  Con- 
ference on  the  slavery  question  were  delegates  from 
the  Baltimore  Conference  in  that  state,  and  there  was 
no  thought  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  or  of  Mary- 
land, separating  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 


112 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Conferences  like  the  Philadelphia,  the  Baltimore,  the 
Pittsburgh,  and  the  Ohio,  that  adhered  to  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  extended  southward  below  Mason 
and  Dixon’s  Line,  and  the  Philadelphia,  the  Baltimore, 
and  the  Pittsburgh  went  far  below  that  line. 

That  line  was  not  fixed  by  the  General  Conference 
of  1844,  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  or  by  any 
authority  in  1844  or  after  1844.  Down  to  the  Civil 
War,  as  well  as  later,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
has  always  been  far  to  the  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon’s 
Line,  and  even  the  Church  South  did  not  legally  claim, 
and,  on  its  own  basis,  had  no  right  to  claim  up  to  the 
historic  line  of  Mason  and  Dixon.  The  General  Con- 
ference of  1844  marked  no  such  line  of  division. 

It  should  also  be  repeated  that  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  has  always  been  in  the  South,  and  always 
covered  considerable  slave  territory  as  long  as  human 
slavery  existed  in  the  United  States,  and,  after  slavery’s 
extinction,  it  continued  to  remain  in  the  same  field.  It 
had  a right  to  be  below  Mason  and  Dixon’s  Line  and 
that  line  was  not  a line  of  separation  in  the  Church. 

In  the  third  place,  the  General  Conference  of  1844 
made  no  “ line  of  separation  ” to  divide  the  Church,  for 
it  did  not  propose  to  divide  the  Church,  and  whatever  it 
said  relative  to  a possible  separation  by  other  parties 
was  simply  in  view  of  the  declaration  of  some  that 
there  must  and  would  be  a separation,  but  this  was 
merely  a contingency  depending  upon  the  future  action 
of  those  making  the  threat,  a contingency  that  might 
never  become  an  actuality. 

In  the  fourth  place,  if  there  was  even  a possible  line 
of  separation  it  was  not  made  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1844,  but  would  be  made  by,  and  be  dependent 


RIGHT  IN  FARTHER  SOUTH 


113 


upon,  the  number  of  Southern  Conferences  that  might 
declare  their  connection  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  dissolved.  If  all  who  were  presumed  to 
threaten  did  withdraw  their  line  would  embrace  them  ; 
if  fewer  withdrew,  their  line  would  be  contracted  cor- 
respondingly. 

If  there  was  any  line,  it  was,  generally  speaking,  the 
northern  border  of  the  most  northern  of  the  Southern 
Conferences  that  would  withdraw,  but  that  nobody  in 
1844:  could  predetermine,  and  it  could  not  be  known 
until  it  was  known  what  Conferences  did  withdraw, 
which  was  not  determined  until  1845  and  then  by  the 
Southern  Conferences  themselves. 

It  is  asserted  that  the  General  Conference  of  1844 
made  a “ line  of  separation,”  but  the  General  Confer- 
ence made  no  line  of  separation.”  If  it  had  wanted 
to  make  a line  it  could  not  have  done  so  for  it  could 
not  tell,  and  no  one  could  foretell  what  Annual  Confer- 
ences would  “ unite  in  a distinct  ecclesiastical  connec- 
tion,” or  if  any  one  would  decide  to  go  out  from  the 
“ jurisdiction  ” of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

The  answer  to  the  Declaration  does  mention  “ the 
line  of  division,”  but  the  General  Conference  drew 
no  “ line  of  division.”  The  answer  also  referred  “ to 
the  northern  boundary  of  such  connection,”  but  the 
General  Conference  did  not  run  that  boundary.  That 
had  to  be  made  by  those  who  would  withdraw,  and 
thus  divide  themselves,  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  The  General  Conference  made  no  line  and 
marked  no  boundary,  and  certainly  drew  no  definite 
line,  such  as  Mason  and  Dixon’s  Line,  or  the  line  of  the 
Ohio  River. 

If  a few  or  many  Conferences  withdrew  they  would 


114  AMERICAN  METHODISM 

make  their  line ; if  none  withdrew  there  would  be  no 
line  at  all. 

It  is  also  to  be  remarked  that  while  the  answer  refers 
to  “ the  northern  boundary  of  such  connection,”  it  does 
not,  in  similar  phrase,  mention  any  southern  boundary 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

When  the  thirteen  Southern  Conferences  in  1845  de- 
clared themselves  withdrawn  by  declaring  their  con- 
nection with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  “dis- 
solved ” and  formed  what  they  called  “ The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,”  they  did  by  that  act  make  a 
line  of  separation  for  themselves,  as  far  as  they  had  any 
power  to  make  one,  but  they  had,  strictly  speaking,  no 
power  to  make  a line  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  even  if  they  could  for  themselves. 

The  line  of  the  Southern  Church,  made  and  claimed 
by  the  above  action  of  1845,  must  have  been  and  was 
the  northern  boundary  line  of  the  most  northern  tier 
of  the  said  thirteen  Southern  Conferences,  modified  by 
those  who  adhered  to  the  old  Church.  So  it  is  plain 
that  the  General  Conference  of  1844  could  not  determine 
what  that  would  be,  and,  further,  that  no  line  was  or- 
dered or  authorized  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
through  the  combined  action  of  its  General  Conference 
and  its  Annual  Conferences,  and,  therefore,  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  neither  made,  nor  bound  itself 
to  recognize,  such  a line. 

The  withdrawing  Southern  Conferences  made  a line 
by  undertaking  to  carry  those  Conferences  with  their 
boundaries  out  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  If 
the  northern  tier  of  Conferences  had  refused  to  join 
with  the  others  that  would  have  carried  the  northern 
line  of  the  new  Church  farther  South. 


EIGHT  IN  FAETHER  SOUTH 


115 


In  that  sense  the  answer  to  the  “ Declaration  ” speaks 
of  “ the  northern  boundary  of  such  connection,”  which 
evidently  was  made  by  the  most  northern  boundaries 
of  the  most  northern  of  the  Southern  Conferences  that 
might  or  would  withdraw,  modified  by  the  Churches 
and  bodies  of  individuals  who  would  adhere  to  the  old 
Church. 

Manifestly  such  a line  was  not  a straight  line,  but  an 
irregular  line,  following  the  angles  and  curves  of  the 
old  Conference  boundaries,  modified  by  those  that  re- 
mained in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Under  such  an  arrangement  the  northern  boundary 
of  the  Southern  Conferences  that  declared  themselves 
withdrawn  did  not  embrace  all  the  slave  territory,  and 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  continued  to  care  for 
sections  where  slaves  were  found. 

The  Ohio  Conference  went  into  Virginia ; the  Pitts- 
burgh Conference  extended  into  Virginia ; the  Phila- 
delphia Conference,  besides  its  Pennsylvania  territory, 
took  in  Delaware,  the  Eastern  Shore  of  Maryland,  and 
went  down  to  the  southern  tip  of  the  Eastern  Shore  of 
Virginia,  all  of  which  at  that  time  was  slave  territory  ; 
while  the  Baltimore  Conference,  besides  its  large  free 
territory  in  the  North,  took  in  Maryland  and  a large 
portion  of  Virginia,  down  to  the  Rappahannock  River, 
all  of  which  was  slave  territory. 

A very  large  part  of  Virginia  continued  in  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  and  was  not  within  the  line  of 
the  Church  South.  The  Baltimore  Conference  of  the 
old  Church  went  down  to  the  Rappahannock  River,  and 
the  northern  line  of  the  new  Church  South  at  that 
point  did  not  come  farther  north  in  Virginia  than  that 
river,  and,  hence,  was  far  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon’s 


116 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Line  and  considerably  to  the  south  of  the  District  of 
Columbia.  So  that  the  line  of  the  Church  South  did 
not  embrace  Maryland,  Delaware,  the  city  of  Wash- 
ington, or  the  part  of  Virginia  north  of  the  Rappahan- 
nock, and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  perfectly 
free  to  go  not  only  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon’s  Line 
but  also  to  go  into  slave  territory  south  of  the  Potomac 
River. 

When  the  thirteen  Southern  Conferences  withdrew 
in  1845  they,  by  that  act  of  withdrawal  as  Conferences, 
made  their  own  limitations,  and  the  northern  boundary 
of  their  new  Church  was  the  northern  boundaries  of 
the  most  Northern  Conferences  of  the  thirteen,  possibly 
modified,  which  at  the  eastern  end  did  not  come  farther 
north  than  the  Rappahannock  River  in  Virginia.  That 
was  their  line  within  which  they  were  logically  self- 
limited, because  their  Conference  lines  did  not  go 
farther  north,  while  above  that  line  the  Conferences 
did  not  withdraw  with  them.  The  Church  South, 
however,  speedily  disregarded  that  line  which  was  the 
line  of  its  own  Annual  Conferences. 

The  General  Conference  of  1844  did  not  do  so,  but 
even  if  it  had  passed  an  act  dividing  the  Church  and 
drawing  a line  of  separation,  that  was  not  the  act  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  by  itself  was  null  and 
void. 

The  General  Conference  of  itself  did  not  have  power 
to  do  such  things.  Such  power  had  not  been  given  it 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  Church.  It  had  power  to 
make  “ rules  and  regulations  ” for  the  Church  but  it 
had  no  power  to  destroy  or  divide  the  Church.  No 
such  power  had  been  given  the  General  Conference 
and  no  such  power  was  inherent  in  it.  It  had  no 


RIGHT  IN  FARTHER  SOUTH 


117 


power  to  destroy  or  sever  the  Church  in  the  United 
States  in  whole  or  in  part.  That  indeed  would  prevent 
its  making  rules  and  regulations  for  the  severed  part, 
whether  large  or  small,  as  the  case  might  be. 

The  General  Conference  is  not  supreme  in  all  things 
over  the  Church.  It  is  not  the  whole  Church,  but  the 
creature  of  the  Church,  and  must  act  within  the  au- 
thorizations and  privileges  made  by  the  Church  in  its 
Constitution.  The  General  Conference  is  only  a part 
of  the  Church,  and,  certainly,  it  would  take  not  less 
than  the  whole  Church  to  destroy  itself  in  whole  or  in 
part. 

One  may  be  told  that  the  Supreme  Court,  in  1854, 
decided  that  the  General  Conference  had  the  power  to 
divide  the  Church  in  1844  and  that  at  that  time  it  ex- 
ercised it. 

That,  however,  was  not  the  decision.  The  decision 
of  the  court  was  on  the  question  of  the  right  of  the 
Church  South  to  a share  in  the  Book  Concern  prop- 
erty, and  the  court  held  that  the  Church  South  was 
“ entitled  to  their  share  of  the  property  of  the  Book 
Concern.”  There  was  ground  for  that  decision  on  the 
basis  of  equity.  The  Church  South  was  a fact.  Its 
preachers  and  people  had  helped  to  build  up  the  Book 
Concern,  and  the  point  could  have  been  made  that, 
therefore,  they  were  entitled  to  an  equitable  share. 

That  was  the  case  and  that  only  was  the  decision. 
Remarks  made  by  the  Justice,  other  than  the  decision, 
might  or  might  not  have  been  made  and  the  decision 
would  have  been  just  the  same.  Ohiter  dicta,  or  aside 
remarks,  by  the  way,  and  not  on  the  main  point,  are 
not  the  decision,  and  sometimes  judges  make  observa- 
tions which  are  not  essential  to,  or  a logical  basis  for, 


118 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


the  decision  even  if  it  is  a sound  decision.  The  decision 
is  the  important  thing  and  not  the  casual  remark. 

So,  sometimes  learned  lawyers  and  judges  who  know 
civil  law  may  err  in  Church  matters  through  lack  of 
knowledge  as  to  ecclesiastical  history  and  ecclesiastical 
law. 

In  this  case  when  the  Justice  remarked  that  ‘‘  The 
same  authority  which  founded  that  Church  in  1784  has 
divided  it,”  he  stated  as  a fact  that  which  was  not  a 
fact,  for  the  authority  that  founded  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  1784  was  not  the  authority  that  was 
vested  in  the  General  Conference  of  1844. 

The  organizing  Conference  of  1784  possessed  the 
sovereign  power  and  was  the  only  sovereign  power  in 
the  ecclesiastical  organization  of  that  time,  but  in  1844 
the  sovereign  power  was  not  vested  in  the  General 
Conference,  as  it  is  not  now,  and  therefore  it  did  not 
possess  the  same  authority  as  was  possessed  by  the 
Conference  of  1784,  and,  consequently,  the  General 
Conference  of  1844  had  no  authority  to  divide  the 
Church,  and,  therefore,  could  not  have  divided  the 
Church  in  1844. 

The  Conference  of  1784  possessed  the  whole  power 
of  the  Church  but  the  General  Conference  of  1844  did 
not  possess  all  power  but  was  a limited  body. 

Down  to,  and  including,  the  General  Conference  of 
1808,  the  sovereign  power  was  in  the  General  Confer- 
ences but  not  in  the  General  Conferences  after  that 
year.  Prior  to,  and  during,  the  Conference  of  1808  the 
General  Conference  had  all  power  because  it  contained 
all  the  governing  force  of  the  Church,  but,  in  1808,  the 
Constitution  then  adopted  changed  the  body  to  a dele- 
gated General  Conference  and  divided  the  sovereign 


EIGHT  IN  FAETHER  SOUTH 


119 


power  between  the  new  delegated  General  Conference 
and  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1844  was  that  kind  of  a modified  and  limited  body. 

After  1808,  questions  of  a constitutional,  or  organic, 
nature  required  the  concurrent  action  of  the  General 
Conference  and  the  Annual  Conferences.  These  were 
facts  with  which  the  Justice  was  not  familiar. 

In  regard  to  the  matter  in  question,  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1844  could  not  of  itself  decide.  It  could  not 
make  a division  of  the  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  or  draw  a line  of  separation,  or  approve  of  a 
separation  made  by  others,  or  give  up  territory  in  the 
United  States,  and,  even  if  the  General  Conference  had 
the  right  to  initiate  such  an  action,  it  was  not  complete 
until  the  Annual  Conferences  had  agreed  to  the  act 
in  the  constitutional  way.  If  in  this  case  there  was 
any  such  action  attempted  by  the  General  Conference, 
the  Annual  Conferences  never  concurred.  On  the  con- 
trary the  Annual  Conferences  refused  to  concur  and 
voted  down  that  which  was  sent  around  to  them  on 
this  subject.  So  whatever  was  said  or  done  as  to 
division,  or  plan,  or  line  of  separation  by  the  General 
Conference  of  1844,  if  anything  was  done,  it  was  invalid 
because  it  never  received  the  consent  of  the  Annual 
Conferences.  In  other  words,  even  if  the  General  Con- 
ference alone  did  adopt  a plan  providing  for  this  sep- 
aration, it  had  no  legal  force. 

This  so-called  provisional  arrangement  of  1844  was  not 
a finality  in  itself.  It  was  to  meet  a threatened  con- 
tingency and  had  to  run  the  gauntlet  of  conditions 
which  did  not  yet  exist  and  also  the  scrutiny  and  votes 
of  the  Annual  Conferences,  where  the  votes  of  three- 
fourths  of  the  ministers  would  be  required. 


120 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


This  was  recognized  by  the  Southern  side.  Thus 
in  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  Doctor  Paine, 
afterwards  Bishop  of  the  Church  South,  said : “ This 
separation  would  not  be  effected  by  the  passage  of 
those  resolutions  through  the  General  Conference. 
They  must  pass  the  Annual  Conferences,  beginning  at 
New  York,  and  when  they  came  round  to  the  South, 
the  preachers  there  would  think  and  deliberate  and  feel 
the  pulse  of  public  sentiment,  and  of  the  members  of 
the  Church,  and  act  in  the  fear  of  God,  and  with  a 
single  desire  for  His  glory.” 

It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  Annual  Conferences 
never  gave  their  consent,  and,  therefore,  whatever  was 
intended  by  the  General  Conference  was  not  completed, 
and  was  not  binding,  and,  on  the  basis  of  Doctor  Paine’s 
statement,  whatever  may  have  been  attempted  by  that 
General  Conference  was  not  done,  as  it  was  not  agreed 
to  by  the  Annual  Conferences. 

Then  the  very  next  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  that  of  1848,  utterly  re- 
pudiated every  act  or  understanding  or  supposition 
that  the  General  Conference  of  1844  was  alleged  to 
have  done  or  intimated  in  the  nature  of  division,  plan 
of  separation,  or  line  of  separation,  including  the  pos- 
sible division  of  the  Book  Concern  property. 

This  repudiation  was  based  on  several  grounds,  and, 
particularly,  on  the  ground  of  unconstitutionality. 

The  General  Conference  of  1848  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  reviewed  the  events  of  1844,  1845, 
and  the  other  years  of  the  quadrennium,  and  carefully 
formulated  its  judgment. 

Among  other  things  it  said : “ We  claim  that  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  exists  as  a distinct 


RIGHT  IN  FARTHER  SOUTH 


121 


and  separate  ecclesiastical  communion  solely  by  the  act 
and  deed  of  the  individual  ministers  and  members  con- 
stituting said  Church.” 

“ We  alRrm  it  to  be  impossible  to  point  to  any  act 
of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  erecting  or  authorizing  said  Church ; nor  has 
the  said  General  Conference,  or  any  individual,  or  any 
number  of  individuals,  any  right,  constitutional  or  other- 
wise, to  extend  official  sanction  to  any  act  tending  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  to  the  dismemberment  of  the 
Church.” 

The  General  Conference  of  1848,  having  recited  and 
summarized  the  facts  involved,  declared  that  “ Three- 
fourths  of  the  members  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences 
did  not  concur  in  the  vote  to  alter  the  sixth  Restrictive 
Rule,  and  thus  sanction  the  Plan,  for  the  accommodation 
of  which  said  alteration  was  asked.  And  the  condi- 
tions and  the  requirements  of  said  Plan  have  been 
violated,  and  hence  said  Plan  is,  and,  from  the  first 
failure  of  the  conditions  of  said  Plan,  or  either  of 
them,  has  been,  null  and  void.” 

“ Finally,  having  thus  found,  upon  clear  and  incon- 
testable evidence,  that  the  three  fundamental  conditions 
of  said  proposed  Plan  have  severally  failed,  and  the 
failure  of  either  of  them  separately  being  sufficient  to 
render  it  null  and  void,  and  having  found  the  practical 
workings  of  said  Plan  incompatible  with  certain  great 
constitutional  principles  elsewhere  asserted,  we  have 
found  and  declared  the  whole  and  every  part  of  said 
provisional  Plan  to  be  null  and  void.” 

Thus  the  General  Conference  of  1848  annulled  every- 
thing that  had  been  done  in  this  matter  by  the  pre- 
ceding General  Conference  of  1844,  and  consequently 


122 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


nullified  certain  misunderstandings  of  what  had  and 
had  not  been  done.  This  annulment  was  on  various 
grounds  and  one  was  that  what  had  been  attempted 
had  been  automatically  annulled  by  the  failure  of  con- 
ditions and  by  the  actions  of  parties  who  had  wanted 
such  a scheme. 

If  there  was  anything  in  the  nature  of  a line  of  sepa- 
ration it  was  almost  immediately  obliterated. 

The  Church  South  ignored  it  and  wiped  it  out  by 
going  over  it  to  the  northward. 

If  there  was  any  line  of  separation  the  new  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  South,  almost  immediately  went 
north  of  it.  If  there  was  a line  of  separation,  the  Church 
South,  by  passing  over  it,  abrogated  the  line  and  an- 
nulled any  understood  or  possible  agreement  by  its  act 
of  going  out  of  the  South  and  into  the  North.  Thus 
its  work  was  carried  into  Ohio  almost  immediately, 
and  within  four  years  after  the  organization  of  the 
Church,  say  in  1849,  it  was  as  far  north  as  Oregon, 
which  was  not  slaveholding  territory,  and  by  that  fact 
obliterated  any  line  of  separation  that  might  have  been 
presumed  to  exist,  and  by  such  passing  over  recognized 
and  declared  that  there  was  no  limiting  line. 

In  this  statement  at  this  time  we  are  not  proposing 
to  find  any  fault  with  the  action,  but  simply  to  show 
that  the  supposed  line  marked  by  the  thirteen  Annual 
Conferences  was  very  promptly  disregarded  by  them- 
selves. 

It  may  be  said,  possibly,  that  soon  after  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Church  South,  the  line  was  disregarded  by 
both  parties,  but  we  will  not  pause  to  decide  that,  but, 
if  that  was  the  case,  and  if  there  had  been  any  con- 
tract, it  had  been  abrogated  by  both  parties,  and  the 


EIGHT  IN  FAETHER  SOUTH 


123 


line,  if  there  was  any,  was  obliterated  before  the  end 
of  the  Civil  War,  and,  indeed,  before  the  war 
came  on. 

If,  then,  there  was  no  limitation  on  the  Church 
South,  there  was  none  on  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  If  so,  then  there  is  no  force  in  the  claim  that 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  no  right  to  go 
South,  for  it  had  at  least  as  much  right  to  go  South  as 
the  Church  South  had  to  go  North. 

If  there  had  been  a line  drawn  by  mutual  agreement, 
the  contract  was  quickly  cancelled,  so  that  long  before 
the  Civil  War  there  was  no  sharp  line  that  constituted 
an  impassable  barrier,  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  was  not  bound  or  restricted  by  an  asserted  but 
obliterated  line  if  that  Church  wished  to  go  into  the 
farther  South. 

This  Church  had  restrained  itself  and  had  kept  out 
of  the  farther  South  for  a score  of  years,  but  it  had  a 
right  to  go  if  it  pleased  and,  towards  the  close  of  the 
Civil  War,  it  felt  the  Southern  need  and  then  it  did 
please  to  go  as  it  had  a right. 

It  is  also  a fact  that  long  years  ago  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  formally  recognized  the  fact 
that  there  was  no  observed  line  of  separation.  This 
it  did  in  its  very  first  General  Conference  after  the 
Civil  War. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  Church  South,  in 
1866,  adopted  the  following  : 

‘'‘Resolved^  That  as  the  geographical  line  defining 
the  territorial  limits  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
established  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  has 
been  officially  and  practically  repudiated  and  disre- 


124 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


garded  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  therefore 
we  are  bound  neither  legally  nor  morally  by  it ; and 
that  we  feel  ourselves  at  liberty  to  extend  our  minis- 
trations and  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  to  all  beyond 
that  line  who  may  desire  us  so  to  do.” 

In  the  Journal  of  that  1866  General  Conference  of 
the  Church  South,  this  action  is  indexed  as  the  “ re- 
pudiation of  the  line  between  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.” 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  claimed  that 
from  the  beginning  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  had  gone  beyond  its  own  line,  and  one  writer 
has  asked : “ Why  did  not  the  Southern  Church 
abrogate  the  line  before  commencing  operations  on  the 
other  side  ? ” 

Whatever  answer  may  be  made  to  that  question,  it  is 
plain  that,  on  its  own  showing,  the  Church  South  con- 
fessed to  having  abrogated  the  line,  if  there  was  one, 
and  could  never  again  fairly  claim  the  existence  of  such 
a line.  This  action  of  1866,  for  example,  precluded  the 
raising  of  a claim  thereafter  by  the  Church  South  to 
any  line  of  division. 

Long  years  before  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  had  said  there  was  no  restrictive  line  to  prevent 
its  going  into  the  far  South,  and  now  the  Church  South, 
which  had  previously  gone  north  of  its  supposed  line, 
formally  declares  there  is  no  restraining  line.  Both 
being  agreed  upon  that  abrogation  of  any  supposed, 
imaginary  or  real  line  of  separation,  neither  could  again 
urge  a separating  line  against  the  going  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  into  any  part  of  the  South. 

Even  if  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  no  right 
to  go  into  the  farther  South  in  1845,  it  does  not  follow 


RIGHT  IN  FARTHER  SOUTH 


126 


that  it  had  no  right  to  go  in  1865,  twenty  years  after- 
wards and  thereafter. 

Circumstances  had  changed.  Many  vital  changes 
had  taken  place.  The  destruction  of  slavery  had  rad- 
ically changed  relations  and  issues,  and,  it  may  be  said, 
even  contracts,  for  no  one  could  fulfill  or  be  bound  by 
contracts  based  on  slavery  which  had  been  outlawed. 

With  the  sweeping  results  of  the  war,  and,  partic- 
ularly, the  emancipation  of  the  slaves,  there  was  a 
new  era,  and  plans  and  contracts  made  necessary  by 
slavery  were,  by  these  new  conditions,  rendered  in- 
operative and  so  were  abrogated. 

Slavery  which  had  been  the  real  barrier  had  been  re- 
moved and  destroyed,  and,  having  disappeared,  no  line 
of  separation  in  the  field  now  existed. 

If  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  no  right  to 
go  into,  or  be  in,  the  far  South  in  1845,  it  certainly  had 
in  1865.  With  the  end  of  the  Civil  War  there  was  an 
open  door  and  there  was  room  and  need  for  more  workers. 
The  people  were  in  need  of  religious  assistance,  and  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  the  men  and  the 
money  to  help  meet  the  need.  It  was  an  opportunity 
and  a duty.  The  need  existed  and  the  duty  followed. 

There  were  people  in  the  South  who  wanted  the  old 
Church,  and  soon  there  would  be  many  more,  and  they 
had  a right  to  have  the  Church  of  their  choice,  as  had 
any  people  in  this  free  country. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  a Church,  still  re- 
mained intact,  just  as  it  had  been  before  1845,  though 
it  had  lost  a considerable  body  of  ministers  and  mem- 
bers, through  their  voluntary  withdrawal,  for  which 
they  alone  were  responsible.  Then  it  was  diminished 
in  bulk,  but,  as  a Church,  it  still  was  the  same. 


126 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


It  remained,  as  it  always  had  been,  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
without  any  sectional  limitation.  It  was  in  the  United 
States  and  for  the  United  States,  and  for  all  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  had  a right  to  go  into  the  South 
as  it  had  anywhere  else  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

It  was  in  the  South,  it  had  a right  to  be  in  the  South, 
and  it  had  a right  to  penetrate  into  the  farther  South. 
It  was  needed  and  it  went. 


XII 


EESULTS  OF  THE  WOEK  OF  THE  METHODIST 
EPISCOPAL  CHUECH  IX  THE  SOUTH 

WITH  the  fact  before  us  that  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  has  always  been  in  the 
South  and  that  about  the  close  of  the  Civil 
War  it  once  more  went  into  the  farther  South  and  into 
the  very  far  South,  the  question  may  be  asked  ; What 
has  been  accomplished  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  South  and,  particularly,  in  that  part  of 
the  South  which  had  been  more  or  less  occupied  by  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South  ? 

In  brief  it  may  be  stated,  in  reply,  that  it  sent  many 
workers  into  that  field  and  contributed  millions  of  dol- 
lars for  the  benefit  of  the  people  of  the  South.  That 
does  not  measure  but  it  partially  indicates  the  spirit  of 
sacrifice  and  service.  When  a Church  and  its  mem- 
bers contribute  so  much,  the  gifts  and  the  self-sacrifice 
prove  a deep  interest  in  the  undertaking,  and  when  to 
this  it  is  added  that  many  of  the  Christian  workers 
never  returned  to  their  Northern  homes,  but  died  and 
were  buried  among  the  Southern  people  among  whom 
they  labored,  the  proof  of  Christian  devotion  is  so  evi- 
dent that  no  question  can  be  raised.  This  was  part  of 
the  outlay,  and  the  only  income  expected  was  the 
spread  of  Christ’s  kingdom  and  the  Christian  uplift  of 
population. 


127 


128 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  went  to  reach  and 
benefit  the  people  generally  without  respect  to  class 
distinctions.  Its  ministrations  were  offered  the  white 
people  and  a considerable  portion  of  the  white  popula- 
tion was  speedily  reached.  The  union  peoples  of  the 
mountains  and  the  valleys  welcomed  it.  The  poor 
whites,”,  as  some  were  styled,  saw  in  this  Church  a 
powerful  helper,  now  that  their  day  of  opportunity 
had  come.  People  who  with  their  fathers  had  always 
wanted  the  old  Church  and  regretted  its  absence,  re- 
joiced upon  its  return.  People  who  saw  the  light  of 
the  rising  sun  of  a new  day  for  a new  South  hailed  its 
coming.  And  Northern  white  people  who  had  gone 
from  the  North  during  the  closing  period  of  the  war, 
and  after  its  close,  desired  the  ministrations  of  the  old 
non-sectional  Church. 

It  reached  the  colored  people  just  freed  from  the 
shackles  of  slavery  and  in  that  most  trying  period  of 
ignorance  and  inexperience  when  they  were  half-blinded 
and  confused  and  were  groping  their  way  to  real  free- 
dom. 

The  undertakings  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  South  were  varied,  mighty  and  effective. 

Naturally,  the  first  form  of  effort  was  evangelistic. 
The  preacher  went  with  the  Gospel  of  Jesus,  congrega- 
tions were  gathered,  people  were  converted,  members 
were  organized,  and  church  buildings  were  erected. 
The  religious  work  carried  with  it  the  moral,  and,  along 
both  lines,  efforts  were  energetically  made  for  the  uplift 
of  all  classes  of  the  population,  and,  wherever  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  went,  it  was  a mighty  force 
for  morals,  for  religion  and  for  intelligence. 

Next  to  its  religious  and  moral  work  in  the  South, 


EESULTS  IN  SOUTH 


129 


the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  done  a great  edu- 
cational work.  It  sent  qualified  teachers,  formed 
schools,  erected  buildings  for  the  accommodation  of 
teachers  and  pupils,  and  has  given  a curriculum,  carry- 
ing the  student  through  the  kindergarten  and  primary 
school  up  to  the  college  and  university,  and  in  the  mean- 
time giving  industrial  training,  and  for  those  who  need 
a technical  education  it  has  had  its  technical  schools  for 
the  intending  minister,  teacher,  and  physician. 

For  this  evangelical  and  educational  work  it  has  sent 
its  best  men  and  women  and  given  its  millions  of 
dollars,  and  repeated  over  and  over  again  the  contribu- 
tions of  laborers  and  of  money. 

This  has  not  been  a waste  but  has  accomplished  a 
work  that  others  were  not  doing  and  could  not  do  at 
all  or  could  not  do  to  the  same  extent. 

It  has  helped  the  religious  work  of  the  South, 
strengthened  its  moral  forces,  and  exerted  a mighty 
uplifting  power  for  the  South  that  has  told  for  good 
and  will  tell  more  and  more  in  future  years.  It  was  a 
strong  reinforcement  for  every  agency  for  good,  and, 
especially,  for  all  the  evangelical  Churches,  and  that 
in  a section  where  there  have  never  been  too  many 
workers  for  the  moral  and  religious  uplift  of  all  the 
people. 

The  benefit  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to 
other  denominations  in  the  South,  and  to  that  section 
generally,  never  can  be  tabulated,  but  manifestly  it 
must  be  immense.  With  its  thousands  of  Christian 
workers,  its  many  schools  and  churches,  and  its  millions 
of  money  spent  in  good  deeds,  it  could  not  be  other- 
wise. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  one  of  the  greatest 


130 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


blessings  that  ever  went  to  the  South  was  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church.  Thus  take  a single  point. 

Going  into  the  farther  South  at  the  close  of  a great 
Civil  War  it  was  just  in  time  to  strengthen  fraternal 
feelings  and  to  help  harmonize  those  who  had  been 
warring  with  each  other,  so  that,  in  a patriotic  sense, 
the  return  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  the 
middle  and  farther  South  has  been  a great  aid  to  the 
National  Union.  Not  a sectional  Church,  but  for  all 
the  United  States  of  America,  it  has  diminished  sec- 
tionalism in  the  South,  promoted  unification,  and 
strengthened  the  common  national  spirit. 

Not  only  has  it  been  politically,  though  not  in  a 
partisan  sense,  the  greatest  unifying  influence  in  a 
territory  where  there  were  and  are  many  sectional 
religious  denominations,  but  it  has  also  greatly  strength- 
ened general  Protestantism  in  that  section. 

Practically  it  has  added  vigor  to  the  common 
evangelical  work,  and  has  benefited  the  population 
socially,  intellectually,  and  religiously. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  not  in  the  South 
in  antagonism  to  any  other  Protestant  Church,  but  to 
give  the  people  what  they  need  and  that  for  which  it 
stands,  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  ad- 
mittedly the  exponent  of  some  things  that  others  do 
not  stand  for,  or  do  not  stand  for  in  the  same  degree, 
or  with  the  same  emphasis.  It  has  its  own  mission 
which  is,  probably,  somewhat  different  from  that  of 
any  other  Church,  and  which  it  alone  can  prosecute  in 
its  own  way. 

One  might  venture  to  suggest  that  nothing  ever 
benefited  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
quite  as  much  as  the  return  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 


RESULTS  IN  SOUTH 


131 


Church  of  the  United  States  of  America  to  the  entire 
Southern  section.  Even  in  the  course  of  twenty  years 
there  was  time  to  evolve  and  develop  differences,  so 
that  one  branch  of  Methodism  might  begin  to  crystallize 
a somewhat  different  type  of  Methodism.  The  coming 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  calculated  to 
modify  or  prevent  this  danger,  and  to  present  to  the 
people  a common  standard  type  which  would  tend  to 
give  a oneness  to  the  Methodism  of  both  Churches  in 
the  Southern  section  of  the  country. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  carrying  its 
multitude  of  workers  and  its  millions  of  money  into 
the  South,  and  carrying  on  its  many  ecclesiastical, 
educational,  and  benevolent  enterprises,  has,  to  say  the 
least,  stimulated  the  Church  South  to  greater  effort. 

Further,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  light- 
ened the  load  of  the  Church  South”^by  undertaking 
work  which  the  latter  Church  could  not  do,  and, 
indeed,  it  may  be  said,  which  the  other  evangelical 
Churches  could  not  do,  for  even  to-day  more  workers 
are  needed  and  there  is  room  for  all. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  by  its  work  in  the 
South  has  helped  to  solve  what  is  termed  the  “ negro 
problem,”  and  that  on  the  basis  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ 
and  Christ’s  Golden  Rule. 

Going  to  the  colored  people  when  they  were  just 
emerging  from  slavery,  when  in  their  enforced  igno- 
rance they  were  groping  their  way  like  men  in  the  dark, 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  taught  them  the  alpha- 
bet, how  to  spell,  and  how  to  read,  and,  so,  put  them 
on  the  road  to  all  necessary  and  possible  human  learn- 
ing. It  has  gone  with  and  guided  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  them  through  the  half  century  and  more  since 


132 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


the  emancipation  of  their  race,  and  educated  the  chil- 
dren of  the  children  of  those  who  came  out  of  slavery, 
until  they  have  their  own  teachers  and  pastors,  and 
their  own  lawyers  and  doctors,  and  the  general  illit- 
eracy has  been  immensely  reduced.  More  than  that, 
it  has  gathered  hundreds  of  thousands  into  their  own 
Churches  and  Sunday-schools,  formed  them  into  their 
own  Annual  Conferences,  with  their  own  presiding 
elders,  so  that,  practically,  they  have  an  ecclesiasticism 
of  their  own  in  which  they  have  had  a training  to  man- 
age their  own  church  affairs.  Beyond  that,  or  included 
in  that,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  taught 
them  to  be  moral  in  their  living  and  to  be  law-abiding 
citizens,  and  this  with  a success  which  has  called  forth 
commendations  from  those  who  are  not  entirely  freed 
from  former  prejudices.  One  reason  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  could  do  this  great  work  was  because 
the  colored  people  regarded  it  as  free  from  the  in- 
fluences of  slavery — from  which  their  race  had  been 
freed. 

Some  have  imagined  that  all,  or  most,  of  the  work 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  South  has 
been  for  and  among  the  colored  people.  This,  how- 
ever, is  a misapprehension.  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  went  not  to  a single  race,  but  to  the  people  of 
the  South,  and  it  proposed  to  reach  all  the  people  who 
needed  it  and  wished  for  its  ministrations  and  its  care, 
as  far  as  it  had  ability  and  opportunity  to  serve  them. 

So  it  went  to  the  white  people  in  the  South.  Some 
gladly  received  it  at  the  beginning  and  the  work  spread, 
so  that  now  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  white  people  in  its  Southern 
membership,  and,  what  may  surprise  many,  a larger 


RESULTS  IN  SOUTH  133 

white  membership  than  its  colored  membership  in  the 
South. 

It  has  built  churches,  schools,  and  colleges  for  the 
white  people.  It  has  followed  and  cared  for  many 
white  immigrants  from  the  North  and  West  who  have 
been  pouring  into  the  South,  but  who  did  not  want  a 
Southern  Church,  many  of  whom  already  belonged  to 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  ' 

It  has  helped  the  white  union  element  in  the  South 
by  diminishing  sectionalism  and  intensifying  the  na- 
tional feeling,  and  its  non-sectionalism  has  called  forth 
the  sympathy  and  approval  of  native  white  Southerners 
who  love  the  nation. 

Many  of  its  ministers  are  typical  white  Southerners 
who  themselves  or  their  fathers  fought  in  the  fratri- 
cidal war  of  the  sixties.  They  love  the  flag  of  the 
Union  and  they  love  the  Church  that  is  for  the  entire 
United  States. 

One  result  of  this  is  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  South  is  not  only  a Church  in  the  South 
but  a Church  of  the  South,  wanted  not  only  by  North- 
ern people  who  have  gone  into  the  South  but  by  South- 
ern people  who  are  “ to  the  manner  born  ” and  who 
are  truly  Southern  in  their  traditions  and  affections 
but  who  are  willing  to  keep  old  political  issues  out  of  the 
Church  of  Christ. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  blessed  both 
white  and  colored  in  the  South.  By  sending  preachers 
and  teachers,  and  raising  others  on  the  soil,  it  has 
greatly  added  to  the  force  of  Christian  workers,  giving 
more  than  the  South  could  put  into  the  field,  and  put- 
ting into  the  work  vast  sums  of  money  the  South  itself 
could  not  furnish.  Aiding  in  the  work  of  all  the  Prot- 


134 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


estant  Churches  in  that  section,  it  has  been  wherever 
it  has  gone  a beneficent  influence  and  an  uplifting 
power. 

What  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  done  for 
others  in  the  South  cannot  be  calculated.  What  it  has 
accomplished  for  itself  in  the  South  can  only  be  esti- 
mated in  part. 

It  has  built  hundreds  of  churches  and  schools  and 
has  invested  immense  amounts  of  money  in  such  prop- 
erties. 

For  more  than  half  a century  it  has  been  carrying  on 
its  work  through  its  Board  of  Home  Missions  and 
Church  Extension,  its  Woman’s  Home  Missionary 
Society,  its  Educational  Boards,  and  other  agencies 
with  zeal  and  liberality.  A Church  that  has  attempted 
and  done  so  much  cannot  be  other  than  a beneficent 
influence. 

It  has  gathered  a communicant  membership  of  away 
beyond  half  a million,  not  counting  Sunday-school 
scholars,  and  many  adherents  who  are  attached  to  the 
denomination,  though  they  are  not  formal  and  legal 
members,  and,  hence,  are  not  counted. 

Out  of  the  movement  have  come  a considerable  num- 
ber of  Annual  Conferences  covering  the  entire  South, 
and  now,  in  the  very  territory  which  was  occupied  by 
the  thirteen  Southern  Conferences  that  withdrew  in 
1845,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  more  mem- 
bers than  the  Church  had  in  that  section  in  1844  and 
1845,  before  the  Southern  Conferences  went  out. 

In  1844  the  entire  Church  throughout  the  United 
States  had  1,171,356  members  and  4,621  preachers.  In 
1845  when  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  was 
organized  the  new  Church  claimed  459,569  including 


RESULTS  IN  SOUTH 


135 


1,519  travelling  preachers  and  124,961  colored  mem- 
bers. That  left  in  the  old  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
about  Y13,306  members  and  3,102  ministers. 

The  Church  South  had  a total  membership,  deduct- 
ing the  1,519  preachers,  of  458,050  members.  Sub- 
tracting the  colored  members,  numbering  124,961, 
the  Church  South  at  that  time  had  333,089  white 
members. 

As  against  the  total  membership  of  the  Church 
South  in  that  section  in  that  time,  namely  458,050, 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  that  locality  now 
has  over  half  a million. 

More  than  that  as  against  the  white  membership  of 
the  Church  South  at  the  time  of  the  withdrawal, 
namely,  about  333,089,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
it  is  calculated,  now  has  in  that  section  over  300,000 
white  members,  a fact  that  may  astonish  many  who 
have  not  been  definitely  and  accurately  advised  in  re- 
gard to  the  work  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
that  Southland,  and  these  are  below  the  real  figures. 

Beyond  the  more  than  three  hundred  thousand  white 
church-members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of 
legal  standing  in  the  South,  there  is  a very  considerable 
white  constituency  which  adds  greatly  to  that  number 
as  showing  the  sphere  of  actual  influence  and  care  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  that  section.  Thus  the 
white  Sunday-schools  have  as  many  as  or  more  than 
are  in  the  regular  membership  of  the  Church.  Allow- 
ing for  possible  duplications  this  would  make  an  aggre- 
gate of  members  and  Sunday-school  scholars  of  from 
five  hundred  thousand  to  six  hundred  thousand  white 
persons.  Again  rating  the  adherents  who  are  not 
actual  members  at  the  usual  proportion  of  three  to  one, 


136 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


on  the  basis  of  three  hundred  thousand  white  members, 
that  would  make  nine  hundred  thousand  white  ad- 
herents which  would  total  one  million,  two  hundred 
thousand  white  members  and  adherents  in  the  South. 
If  we  estimate  two  adherents  to  one  member  then  it 
would  make  a total  of  nine  hundred  thousand  white 
members  and  adherents.  Or  if  we  count  one  adherent 
to  each  regular  member  then  there  would  be  a total  of 
over  six  hundred  thousand,  and  counting  the  more  than 
three  hundred  thousand  in  the  white  Sunday-schools  of 
the  Church,  a total  of  nine  hundred  thousand. 

These  figures  which  are  a very  conservative  estimate 
would  indicate  a white  constituency  of  members  and 
adherents  of  a million  or  more  who  are  more  or  less 
under  the  care  and  influence  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  in  the  South. 

Then  taking  the  total  membership  of  white  and 
colored  of  more  than  five  hundred  thousand  with  about 
the  same  number  in  the  Sunday-schools,  and  adding  the 
adherents  in  the  same  proportion,  it  would  figure  out  a 
great  mass  of  people  numbering,  perhaps,  two  millions, 
under  the  influence  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  South  and  for  which  this  Church  is  more  or  less 
directly  responsible. 

Evidently  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  ac- 
complished very  much  in  the  South  and  its  relation  to 
the  South  is  not  to  be  treated  as  a trifling  affair  or  a 
matter  of  little  moment. 


XIII 


HAS  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 
ANY  PRESENT  DUTY  IN  THE  SOUTH  ? 

HE  good  work  done  in  the  South  during  the 


last  half  century  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal 


Church  will  be  conceded  by  all  who  are  well- 


informed  and  fair-minded.  Some,  however,  may  ask : 
Is  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  needed  at  this  time 
in  the  South  ? In  other  words.  Has  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  any  longer  a mission  in  the  South 
and  for  the  South  ? 

Why  not?  Why  should  the  question  be  raised? 
Does  any  one  ask  whether  it  has  any  mission  in  the 
North,  in  the  West,  in  the  Northwest,  or  in  the  South- 
west ? Certainly  not.  Then  why  should  any  one  ask 
whether  it  has  any  mission  in  and  for  the  South  ? 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  and 
the  South  is  in  the  United  States  of  America  and, 
therefore,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  for  the 
South  as  it  is  for  the  other  parts  of  the  country. 

On  general  principles  it  is  to  be  assumed  that  it  has 
a mission  there  as  it  has  elsewhere,  and  the  burden  of 
proof  to  the  contrary  would  be  upon  those  who  would 
urge  that  it  ought  not  to  be  in  the  Southland. 

Why  should  it  not  be  in  the  South  ? It  is  an  Amer- 
ican Church  and  for  America  and  the  South  is  in  Amer- 


137 


138 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


ica.  It  is  a Church  calculated  to  do,  and  is  doing^ 
evangelical  Protestant  work  which  is  needed  in  the 
South,  as  it  is  needed  in  other  parts  of  the  land,  too 
much  of  which  is  not  now  done,  notwithstanding  the 
service  there  rendered  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

The  needed  work  makes  a needed  mission  in  the 
South  for  this  Church  and  a large  part  of  the  Southern 
population  needs,  appreciates,  and  loves  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  This  part  of  the  population  wants 
the  Church,  asks  for  the  Church,  and  would  feel  that  it 
had  suffered  a great  loss  if  it  was  deprived  of  its  min- 
istrations. The  people  composing  this  section  of  the 
population  want  this  Church  and  as  free  Americans 
they  have  a right  to  have  the  Church  they  want. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  now  a right  to 
be  and  continue  in  the  South  for  a considerable  part  of 
it  is  in  the  South,  identified  with  the  South,  and  as 
genuinely  Southern  as  the  South  itself.  It  is  rooted  in 
the  South  and  its  mission  there  is  to  grow,  to  shelter, 
and  to  bear  fruit  in  the  South. 

It  has  a mission  to  care  for  those  who  have  gathered 
under  its  wing  in  that  section.  It  is  needed  there  at 
this  time  to  provide  for  the  hundreds  of  thousands  who 
have  come  into  its  fold,  many  of  whom  had  not  been 
born  when  the  controversies  of  the  forties  and  the  Civil 
War  of  the  sixties  brought  so  much  distress  and  disas- 
ter. With  many  of  the  Methodist  Episcopalians  in  the 
Southern  section  these  things  are  not  even  memories. 
They  have  heard  about  them  but  they  never  knew  any- 
thing about  them. 

Further,  not  a few  of  them  are  from  the  North  and 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  the  Church  of 


PRESENT  DUTY  IN  SOUTH 


139 


their  childhood,  and  their  Southern  born  children  are 
genuine  Southerners  who  have  never  been  under  the 
influence  of  any  other  Church. 

It  is  needed  in  the  South  to  care  for  its  more  than 
half  a million  of  Southern  communicant  members,  its 
more  than  half  a million  scholars  in  its  Southern 
Sunday-schools,  and  its  many  more  than  half  a million 
of  Southern  adherents  who  are  afiiliated  in  feeling  or 
conviction  and  who  more  or  less  regularly  attend  its 
services  and  come  to  some  extent  under  its  Christian 
influence. 

This  possible  million  and  more  look  to  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  for  religious  instruction  and  moral 
guidance.  Can  any  one  be  sure  that  all  these  will  just 
as  willingly  hear  the  voice  of  another  and  just  as  gladly 
follow  into  another  fold  ? And,  if  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  should  leave  them,  who  can  be  sure  that 
they  will  find  as  good  pastures  and  thrive  as  well  else- 
where ? To  care  for  these,  who  are  a part  of  itself, 
constitutes  a mission,  and  a sufficient  mission  for  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  South.  Shall  a 
parent  not  provide  for  his  own  family  ? Shall  a 
Church  not  care  for  those  it  has  raised  up  and  care 
for  them  where  they  are — in  the  South  ? 

If  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  this  very  instant 
called  out  of  the  South  every  preacher  and  teacher  whom 
it  has  sent  from  the  North  or  the  West,  that  would  only 
be  a fraction  and  there  still  would  be  a large  body  left 
composed  of  Southerners  who  for  one  or  two  genera- 
tions have  been  under  its  influence  and  training.  If 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  technically  withdrew 
from  the  South  these  Methodist  Episcopalians  would 
remain  in  the  South  rooted  in  that  section. 


140 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


What  would  become  of  them  ? Where  would  they 
go  ? Who  would  care  for  them  ? Who  would  care  for 
them  in  the  same  way  ? 

The  Church  could  not  withdraw  its  workers  if  it 
would.  They  are  a part  of  the  South  and  must  remain 
with  that  part  of  the  country. 

The  South,  which  has  been  benefited  by  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  still  needs  it,  for  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  still  stands  for  the  same  essential 
things. 

It  still  is  a non-sectional  Church  in,  of,  and  for,  the 
entire  United  States  of  America.  Wherever  it  goes  it 
weakens  sectionalism  and  strengthens  the  idea  of  na- 
tional oneness  and  sameness.  So  it  still  is  helping  to 
nationalize  the  entire  country  and  everywhere  to  evoke 
and  spread  the  national  spirit,  and  it  still  is  needed 
where  there  are  so  many  sectional  branches  of  Churches 
of  different  denominations  which  sectional  branches 
have  up  to  the  present  time  refused  to  unite  with  the 
parent  bodies.  In  contrast,  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  is  in  the  whole  country  and  of  the  whole 
country  with  no  North,  and  no  South,  and  no  East 
and  no  West,  recognizing  one  flag,  one  nation,  and  one 
ecclesiasticism  covering  the  whole  land. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  now  needed  in 
the  South  to  care  for  the  increasing  immigration  com- 
ing into  the  Southland.  One  of  the  phenomenal  facts 
of  migration  to-day  is  the  drift  towards  the  South. 
Not  only  is  Northern  capital  stimulating  and  strength- 
ening Southern  industries,  but  Northern  people  also  are 
moving  into  the  Southern  section,  and  the  immigration 
into  the  South  is  much  greater  than  that  which  is  go- 
ing into  the  West. 


PRESENT  DUTY  IN  SOUTH 


141 


All  this  is  helping  to  make  the  New  South,  and  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  a special  mission  in 
and  for  this  New  South.  It  is  needed  to  care  for  the 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  immigrants  from  the  North 
who  are  pouring,  and  will  continue  to  pour,  into  the 
South.  To  many  of  them  it  is  their  old  Church  and 
to  all  it  is  a non-sectional  and  nation-wide  Church. 

One  may  ask : Does  not  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  interfere  with  the  work  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South  ? 

Not  necessarily.  It  certainly  does  not  need  to  inter- 
fere with  the  Church  South  any  more  than  a Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  would  with  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal or  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

It  has,  and  can  find,  its  own  constituency  and  there 
is  more  work  to  do  in  the  South  than  all  the  Protestant 
Churches  ever  have  done.  The  Church  South  has 
never  covered  all  the  territory  and  reached  all  the 
people  in  the  South. 

Certainly  it  has  not  seriously  injured  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  as  the  latter’s  very  decided 
growth  demonstrates.  Instead  of  injuring  it  has  bene- 
fited that  Church  by  its  stimulating  influence. 

To  say  the  least,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is 
not  injuring  the  Church  South  any  more  than  the 
Church  South  is  injuring  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  when  it  goes  into  the  North  and  prosecutes 
its  work  in  proximity  to  the  churches  of  that  body, 
and,  surely,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  as 
much  right  to  go  into,  and  be  in,  the  South,  as  the 
Church  South  has  to  go  out  of  the  South  and  into  the 
North,  as  it  has  done  quite  from  the  beginning.  In 
all  equity  when  this  has  been,  and  is  being,  done,  there 


142 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


can  be  no  rightful  objection  that  can  be  urged  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  being  in  the  South. 

If  a union  of  the  two  bodies  into  one  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  is  de- 
sired and  desirable,  then  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  should  be  in  the  South  to  demonstrate  the 
need  and  to  hasten  the  union,  or  to  show  whether  the 
two  bodies  are  homogeneous  and  whether  the  union  is 
or  is  not  practicable. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  been  a great 
patriotic  and  unifying  influence  in  the  South  because  it 
is  not  sectional,  but  knows  no  section  and  serves  the 
whole  country.  For  this  among  other  reasons  it  is 
needed  still. 

It  is  needed  by  the  native  Southerners  who  are  tired 
of  sectionalism,  who  want  the  old  Church  which  is  in 
and  for  the  entire  United  States  of  America,  and  which 
preaches  the  same  old  and  ever  new  Gospel  of  the 
Church  and  of  Christ. 

It  is  still  needed  in  the  South  to  assist  in  the  general 
religious  work  of  that  part  of  the  country,  and  it  is 
helping  all  Evangelical  Protestantism  and  all  the  peo- 
ple, doing  a work  that  others  are  not  doing  and  cannot 
do.  We  say  cannot  do  mainly  because  as  it  is  they 
are  not  now  able  to  meet  all  the  demands  upon  them. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  can  never  with- 
draw from  the  South  for  that  would  be  a confession 
that  it  had  no  right  to  be  everywhere  in  the  country, 
or,  in  other  words,  that  it  is  a sectional  Church.  It  has 
never  been  out  of  the  South  and  it  never  can  go  out  of 
the  South  or  any  other  special  section  and  belie  its 
legitimate  title  “ The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America.” 


PRESENT  DUTY  IN  SOUTH 


143 


It  cannot  make  itself  a sectional  Church  for  that 
would  be  an  unrighteous  self-contradiction,  and,  so,  it 
must  remain  in  every  section  where  it  is.  In  view  of 
the  facts  stated  there  is  no  way  by  which  it  can  honor- 
ably withdraw.  Its  withdrawal  from  the  South  would 
be  an  inconsistency,  a blunder,  and  a crime. 

It  must  not  go  out  and  it  must  not  be  permitted  to 
go  out.  It  must  remain  in  some  form,  in  full  form  as 
it  is  with  this  Church  in  the  whole  country  and  the 
whole  country  within  this  one  Church,  or  with  com- 
bined Methodisms  of  the  whole  nation  in  one  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church. 

As  things  now  are  it  can  never  go  out  of  the  South. 
It  can  never  honorably  separate  itself  from  its  Southern 
work,  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  still  has  a 
mission  in  the  South  and  a greater  one  than  ever 
before. 


XIY 


METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  EFFORTS  TOWARDS 
UNION  WITH  THE  CHURCH  SOUTH 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  did  not  make 
the  separation  that  became  or  resulted  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  It 
wanted  the  Southern  ministers  and  members  to  con- 
tinue in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  they  had 
been  from  the  beginning  of  the  Church,  but  when  they 
were  determined  and  decided  to  take  their  departure 
from  the  original  Church,  its  General  Conference  of 
1844:  desired  that,  if  they  did  carry  out  their  declared 
purpose  to  separate,  they  should  be  treated  with  “ Chris- 
tian kindness  ” and  with  “ the  strictest  equity  ” even 
where  they  had  no  legal  claim. 

These  were  gracious  words  and  indicated  a friendly 
intention,  and,  as  though  reciprocating  that  form  and 
spirit,  the  Southern  Convention  of  1845  that  dissolved 
the  connection  with  the  old  Church,  and  on  the  very 
day  it  resolved  thus  to  dissolve  its  relationship  and 
to  organize  a new  denomination  called  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  it  also  “ resolved  ” that 
“ cherishing  a sincere  desire  to  maintain  Christian 
union  and  fraternal  intercourse  with  the  Church  North,” 
it  would  “ always  be  ready,  kindly  and  respectfully,  to 
entertain,  and  duly  and  carefully  consider,  any  proposi- 
tion or  plan  having  for  its  object  the  union  of  the  two 
great  bodies,  in  the  North  and  South,  whether  such  pro- 
posed union  ho  jurisdictional  or  connectionaV^ 

144 


EFFORTS  TOWARDS  UNION 


145 


Courteously  framed  as  were  these  phrases,  they  un- 
fortunately contained  a fundamental  error.  They  speak 
of  “ the  Church  North  ” and  of  “ the  two  great  bodies, 
in  the  North  and  South.”  This  implied  a dividing  line 
which  not  only  divided  the  country  into  the  North  and 
the  South  but  also  divided  the  country  between  the 
two  Churches  in  the  same  way,  whereas  the  thirteen 
Conferences  that  proclaimed  their  withdrawal  did  not 
embrace  all  the  South,  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  even  by  actual  occupancy,  was  not  limited  to 
what  was  termed  the  North,  but  extended  into  the 
South. 

Further,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  not  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  North.  That  never  was 
its  legal  title.  Even  in  the  document  that  some  have 
incorrectly  called  the  “ Plan  of  Separation,”  and  which 
the  organizing  convention,  which  made  the  Church 
South,  called  “ the  provisional  plan  of  separation,”  the 
General  Conference  of  1844  never  called  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  “ the  Church  North  ” or  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  North,  though  it  does  mention 
the  threatened  possibility  of  “ the  Church  South,” 
“The  Southern  Church,”  and  “the  Church  in  the 
South.” 

On  the  contrary  in  contrast  it  always  speaks  of  “ the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ” repeating  that  old  title 
over  and  over  again,  without  change,  because  there  was 
no  change  in  the  old  Church  which  was  to  go  on  down 
through  the  generations  with  the  unchanged  title  be- 
cause it  was  the  unchanged  original  Church.  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  was  the  “ Church 
South,”  the  intention  being  to  make  it  “ the  Southern 
Church  ” to  be  in  and  for  “ the  South,”  and,  hence,  the 


146 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


limiting  title  was  voluntarily  chosen,  while  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  still  continued  to  be  the  same 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  without  any  geographical 
limitation  of  North,  or  East,  or  West  in  its  title. 

Notwithstanding  this  attempt  to  put  a sectional 
limitation  on  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  which 
the  facts  did  not  justify,  nevertheless,  the  kindly  ex- 
pressions, first  of  a sincere  desire  to  maintain  Chris- 
tian union  and  fraternal  intercourse,”  and,  second,  the 
promise  “ to  entertain  and  duly  and  carefully  consider 
any  proposition  or  plan  having  for  its  object  the  union 
of  the  two  great  bodies,”  would  lead  one  to  infer  that 
there  was  a possibility  of  reunion. 

Though  the  phrasing  seems  to  put  the  burden  and 
responsibility  of  making  the  proposition  or  devising  the 
plan  on  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  out  of  which 
the  organizers  of  the  Church  South  had  gone,  never- 
theless such  language  was  calculated  to  excite  hope 
that  the  outgoing  Church  might  come  back  and  be  of 
the  one  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

But  the  institution  of  human  slavery,  that  had  so 
much  to  do  with  the  withdrawal  of  those  who  made 
up  the  Church  South,  made  what  seemed  to  be  an 
impassable  barrier,  and  remained  such  as  long  as  it 
continued  to  exist. 

As  long  as  slavery  had  such  great  influence,  directly 
or  indirectly,  in  what  was  called  the  slave  section,  no 
voice  for  ecclesiastical  union  could  come  from  that 
locality,  and  no  voice  from  the  free  section  would  be 
heard. 

Time  and  other  forces  had  to  work  until  the  possible 
condition  was  created.  They  did  work  and  worked 
more  rapidly  than  might  have  been  anticipated.  In 


EFFORTS  TOWARDS  UNION 


147 


less  than  a score  of  years  human  slavery  had  ceased  to 
be  in  the  fair  land  of  the  South.  Shackles  had  been 
broken  and  barriers  had  been  removed.  The  time  of 
possibilities  had  arrived  and  now  it  would  seem  that  a 
voice  for  fraternity  and  union  might  speak  and  be  heard. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  the  first  to 
make  a move  towards  union.  Conditions  prior  to  the 
Civil  War  had  made  it  impracticable  to  bring  about 
either  fraternity  or  union  during  that  period,  but,  as 
soon  as  the  war  was  over,  representatives  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  made  fraternal  advances 
and  initiated  proposals  for  unification. 

Almost  immediately  after  the  close  of  the  Civil  War, 
in  connection  with  which  came  the  destruction  of  slavery, 
namely  in  the  month  of  June,  1865,  the  bishops  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  issued  a declaration  as  to 
the  matter  of  union  between  their  Church  and  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

In  this  utterance  the  Methodist  Episcopal  bishops 
said  “ that  the  great  cause  (slavery)  which  led  to  the 
organization  of  the  Wesleyan  Methodists  (in  the 
Northern  States)  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  South,  on  the  other,  had  ceased 
to  exist,  and  they  hoped  the  day  was  not  far  distant 
when  these  Methodist  bodies  might  become  one  family 
again,”  or  “they  hoped  the  day  was  not  far  distant 
when  these  Methodist  families  might  become  one  family 
again.” 

So  as  long  ago  as  1865  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  led  in  a movement  looking  towards 
a union  of  the  two  bodies. 

Nothing,  however,  came  of  that  deliverance  to  en- 
courage those  who  proffered  the  olive  branch  of 


148 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


ecclesiastical  peace,  but  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  did  take  cognizance  of  the 
utterance  of  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

Under  date  of  August  17,  1865,  the  bishops  of  the 
Church  South  referred  to  the  meeting  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  bishops  and  the  missionary  secretaries  of 
this  Church,  which  had  been  held  at  Erie,  Pennsylvania, 
in  June,  1865,  and,  commenting  on  their  suggestion  of 
union,  the  Church  South  bishops  made  a counter 
declaration. 

In  it  they  said:  “Their  bishops  and  missionary 
secretaries  held  a meeting  in  June,  the  proceedings  of 
which,  embracing  this  subject,  have  been  published  by 
order.  Under  these  circumstances,  some  allusion  to  it 
may  be  proper  for  us.” 

Then,  after  making  certain  allegations  against  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  for  example,  “that  a 
large  proportion,  if  not  a majority,  of  Northern 
Methodists  have  become  incurably  radical.  They 
teach  for  doctrine  the  commandments  of  men.  They 
preach  another  Gospel,”  they  say  in  their  response: 
“ we  can  anticipate  no  good  result  from  even  entertain- 
ing the  subject  of  reunion  with  them.  Fidelity  to 
what  seems  our  providential  mission  requires  that  we 
preserve  our  Church,  in  all  its  vigor  and  integrity,  free 
from  entangling  alliances  with  those  whose  notions  of 
philanthropy  and  politics  and  social  economy  are 
liable  to  give  an  ever-varying  complexion  to  their 
theology.  Let  us  abide  in  our  lot,  and  be  true  to  our 
calling,  doing  what  we  can  to  spread  Scriptural  holiness 
through  these  lands,  and  to  oppose  the  tide  of  fanaticism 
which  threatens  their  overflow.” 


EFFORTS  TOWARDS  UNION 


149 


Such  a response  was  not  very  hopeful  for  union,  but 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  did  not  abandon  its 
advances  in  that  direction.  The  very  next  year  other 
attempts  were  made. 

In  the  month  of  April,  1866,  the  first  time  since  the 
beginning  of  the  Civil  War,  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  convened.  In 
the  early  part  of  that  month,  the  New  York  East  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  in 
session  in  the  city  of  Brooklyn.  At  the  instance  of 
the  Reverend  Dr.  D.  D.  Whedon,  the  editor  of  the 
Methodist  Quarterly  Remew ^ this  Conference,  by  a vote 
of  eighty  to  eight,  ordered  the  following  fraternal  ex- 
pression to  be  telegraphed  to  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Church  South : 

‘‘  Whereas^  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  is  now  in  session  in  the  city 
of  New  Orleans,  therefore. 

Resolved,  That  we,  the  New  York  East  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  hereby  present  to 
that  venerable  representative  body  our  Christian  salu- 
tations, and  cordially  invite  them,  together  with  us,  to 
make  next  Sabbath,  April  8,  1866,  a day  of  special 
prayer,  both  in  private  and  in  public  congregations,  for 
the  peace  and  unity  of  heart  of  our  common  country, 
and  for  the  full  restoration  of  Christian  sympathy  and 
love  between  the  different  Churches,  and,  especially, 
between  the  different  branches  of  Methodism  within 
this  nation;  and  upon  the  receipt  of  an  acceptable 
affirmative  reply,  this  concert  of  prayer  will  be  con- 
sidered by  this  Conference  as  adopted.” 

This  dispatch  was  sent  on  Thursday,  April  5th,  but 
was  not  presented  to  the  Church  South  General  Con- 


150 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


ference  until  noon,  on  Saturday,  the  7th.  To  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  New  York  East  Conference  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Church  South  cordially  agreed  by 
a rising  vote,  and  the  action  was  ordered  to  be  tele- 
graphed. Unfortunately  the  telegram  in  response  was 
not  received  by  the  secretary  of  the  New  York  East 
Conference  until  about  half-past  ten  o’clock  on  Satur- 
day night,  April  7th,  when,  of  course,  the  Annual  Con- 
ference was  not  in  session.  The  secretary  hastened, 
however,  to  notify  the  Churches  in  New  York  and 
Brooklyn. 

On  the  11th  of  April,  1866,  Dr.  John  P.  Newman, 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  three  others, 
who  were  in  New  Orleans,  telegraphed  to  Bishop 
Ames,  who  was  presiding  over  the  New  York  Confer- 
ence, then  in  session : “ Have  New  York  Conference 
request  Southern  General  Conference  to  appoint  com- 
missioners, one  from  each  of  their  Annual  Conferences, 
to  confer  with  like  commissioners,  appointed  by  bench 
of  bishops,  one  from  each  of  your  Annual  Conferences, 
in  May,  at  Washington,  to  agree  on  a reunion  of  the 
Churches  this  Centenary  year  of  Methodism,  subject  to 
the  approval  of  your  General  Conference.” 

Following  this  suggestion,  the  very  next  day,  Thurs- 
day, the  12th,  the  New  York  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  sent  to  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  this  tele- 
gram : 

“We  should  express  the  hope,  desire,  and  expectation 
that,  at  no  distant  day,  the  bodies  unhappily  severed 
will  be  united  and  suggest  the  propriety  of  your  body 
providing  a conference  with  a commission  that  may  be 
appointed,  by  our  bishops,  with  reference  to  reunion, 


EFFORTS  TOWARDS  UNION 


161 


subject  to  the  action  of  our  General  Conference,  May, 
1868,  thus  crowning  our  glorious  Centenary.” 

This  telegram  was  presented  to  the  Southern  Gen- 
eral Conference  on  Saturday,  the  llth,  about  the  close 
of  the  day’s  session.  It  was  then  referred  to  the  Col- 
lege of  Bishops.  On  the  29th  of  April,  eleven  days 
after  the  adjournment  of  the  New  York  Annual  Con- 
ference, the  secretary  of  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Church  South  sent  the  following  to  the  secretary  of 
the  New  York  Conference : 

“ The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  heartily  reciprocates  the  kind  expres- 
sions of  the  New  York  Annual  Conference,  but  can- 
not consent  to  appoint  commissioners  on  the  plan  pro- 
posed.” 

These  were  well-meant  efforts  from  those  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  bring  about  a fellow- 
ship between  the  two  Churches  and  also  to  secure  a 
Conference  between  representatives  of  the  two  bodies 
in  the  interest  of  union,  but  in  this  matter  they  failed. 

In  the  same  General  Conference  of  1866  the  bishops 
of  the  Church  South  in  their  episcopal  address  said : 
“ In  respect  to  the  separate  and  distinct  organization  of 
our  Church,  no  reasons  have  appeared  to  alter  our 
views  as  expressed  in  August  last.” 

Thus  they  reiterated  their  opposition  to  “ even  enter- 
taining the  subject  of  reunion”  with  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church. 


XV 


PEOPOSED  UNION  BETWEEN  THE  CHUECH 
SOUTH  AND  THE  METHODIST  PEOTES- 
TANT  CHUECH 

HOUGH  in  1866  the  Methodist  Episcopal 


Church,  South,  rejected  in  most  positive 


terms  the  advances  towards  union  made  by 


the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  yet  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Church  South,  meeting  that  very  year, 
though  its  bishops  formally  said,  referring  to  the  ad- 
vances from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  that  “ In 
respect  to  the  separate  and  distinct  organization  of  our 
Church,  no  reasons  have  appeared  to  alter  our  views  as 
expressed  in  August  last,”  notwithstanding  all  this,  the 
Southern  General  Conference  in  the  same  month  pro- 
posed union  with  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  as 
though  discriminating  against  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  at  that  time. 

At  that  time  the  Methodist  Protestants  in  General 
Convention  were  in  session  in  the  city  of  Washington, 
District  of  Columbia. 

On  May  3,  1866,  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  adopted  the  fol- 
lowing : 

BesoVved^  That  a commission,  consisting  of  five 
members  of  this  body  and  two  bishops,  be  appointed  to 
confer  with  a commission,  if  one  be  appointed  from 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Protestant 


162 


SOUTH  AND  METHODIST  PROTESTANTS  153 


Church,  now  in  session  in  Georgetown,  District  of  Co- 
lumbia, on  the  subject  of  a union  between  the  Method- 
ist Protestant  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  with  power  to  settle  the  union.” 

Bishop  McTyeire  of  the  Church  South  sent  a docu- 
ment, which  was  received  by  the  Methodist  Protestant 
General  Conference  on  the  eighth  day  of  its  session 
which  referred  to  the  action  of  the  Church  South  Gen- 
eral Conference  suggesting  that  “ a commission  be  ap- 
pointed to  confer  with  a similar  one  from  your  Confer- 
ence on  the  subject  of  union  between  the  two  Churches 
and  with  powers  to  conclude  the  terms  of  union,  if  it 
can  be  agreed  upon,”  and  Bishop  McTyeire’s  communi- 
cation also  said  “ as  several  prominent  brethren  of  the 
Methodist  Protestant  Church  had  suggested.” 

On  this  Dr.  Edward  J.  Drinkhouse,  in  his  “ History 
of  Methodist  Reform,”  which  is  a history  of  the  Meth- 
odist Protestant  Church,  Yol.  II,  p.  468,  says:  “It 
seems  that  the  Alabama  and  the  Mississippi  Confer- 
ences of  the  Church,  at  their  previous  sessions,  had 
passed  such  resolutions  of  invitation ; thus  taking  an 
initiative  which,  in  its  consummation,  finally  dis- 
regarded the  theory  of  Mutual  Rights  and  General 
Conference  authority.” 

A committee  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  General 
Conference  reported  that,  “ In  the  opinion  of  your  com- 
mittee, this  General  Conference  has  not  authority  to 
act  in  the  premises,  this  power  being  alone  with  the 
people ; but  the  commission  they  appointed  are  recom- 
mended and  invited  to  confer  with  the  Convention  to 
be  called  for  Montgomery  in  1867,  or,  in  default,  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Church  in  May,  1870.” 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Churph,  South^  in  its  Gen- 


154 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


eral  Conference,  appointed  the  following  commission- 
ers to  treat  with  similar  commissioners  if  such  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  Methodist  Protestant  Conference, 
namely : Bishops  Pierce  and  McTyeire,  and  the  Rev- 
erends Charles  F.  Deems,  J.  E.  Evans,  S.  Register, 
N.  Head,  and  L.  M.  Lee. 

The  action  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Church 
South,  having  been  communicated  to  the  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Protestant  Church,  that  body  took 
reciprocal  action  and  appointed  the  following  commis- 
sioners ; 

From  Maryland,  Rev.  S.  B.  Southerland,  L.  J.  Cox, 
Jr. ; from  Yirginia,  Rev.  J.  G.  Whitfield,  C.  W.  But- 
ton ; from  North  Carolina,  Rev.  W.  H.  Wills,  G.  J. 
Cherry ; from  Tennessee,  Rev.  B.  F.  Duggan ; from 
Georgia,  Rev.  F.  H.  M.  Henderson,  J.  Bass ; from 
Alabama,  Rev.  F.  L.  B.  Shaver,  P.  T.  Graves ; from 
Mississippi,  Rev.  P.  H.  Napier,  P.  Loper;  and  from 
North  Mississippi,  Rev.  A.  A.  Houstan,  W.  R.  Mont- 
gomery. 

The  two  commissions  convened  on  the  8th  of  May, 
1867,  at  Montgomery,  Alabama,  and,  on  assembling, 
took  some  time  for  free  consultation  and  an  interchange 
of  friendly  expressions. 

Bishop  McTyeire  declared  that  nothing  essential 
separated  the  two  Churches  at  that  time  and  expressed 
the  hope  that  they  would  wed  and  be  one  family ; 
Dr.  L.  M.  Lee  said  the  separation  in  1828  was  a sad 
day  for  Methodism  and  that  he  had  been  laboring  for  a 
reunion  ; and  the  Rev.  J.  E.  Evans  coincided  with  what 
his  colleagues  had  said  and  hoped  the  union  would  be 
consummated. 

The  Methodist  Protestant  Commissioners  warmly 


SOUTH  AND  METHODIST  PROTESTANTS  155 

welcomed  the  representatives  of  the  Church  South,  and 
agreed  with  them  that  a visible  union  of  the  two 
branches  of  Methodism  was  desirable,  providing  such  a 
union  could  be  on  terms  which  were  mutually  agreeable. 

Then  came  the  formal  propositions  and  the  presenta- 
tion of  conditions. 

The  commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  presented  the  following  proposition  : 

“We  propose  a formal  and  corporate  union  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  the  Methodist 
Protestant  Church.  The  separation  originally  took 
place  because  lay  representation  was  denied.  The 
principle  being  now  conceded  and  incorporated  into 
the  economy  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
we  think  there  is  no  insuperable  bar  to  such  union  of 
the  two  bodies  respectfully  represented  by  us. 

“We  propose  a union  with  your  ministers,  itinerant 
and  local,  and  your  members,  each  in  their  several  re- 
lations, and  entitled  to  all  the  rights  and  privileges 
common  to  our  own  ministers  and  members,  under  the 
Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.” 

The  commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Church  responded  in  a statement  of  “ Terms  of  Union,” 
containing  fifteen  stipulations : 

“ 1.  Strike  out  of  the  Church  name  the  word  South. 

“ 2.  If  Episcopal  be  retained  in  the  name,  Protestcmt 
to  be  incorporated. 

“3.  Dispense  with  the  presiding  eldership. 

“ 4.  Have  as  many  bishops  as  annual  conferences. 

“ 5.  In  the  selection  of  new  bishops,  what  are  now 
our  annual  conferences  shall  have  the  privilege  of  nom- 
inating from  their  present  members  their  first  bishops, 
and  the  General  Conference  shall  elect  said  nominees. 


156 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


“ 6.  Itinerant  ministers  to  have  the  right  of  appeal 
from  the  stationing  power. 

“7.  Maryland  Conference,  in  the  event  of  union, 
to  be  allowed  to  decide  upon  its  own  name,  ministerial 
membership,  and  boundaries  be  not  extended  farther 
south  than  the  states  of  Maryland  and  Delaware, 
and  the  District  of  Columbia  and  the  station  in 
Alexandria. 

“8.  Our  system  of  trial  of  accused  ministers  and 
members,  or  its  equivalent. 

“9.  No  minister  to  be  transferred  from  one  Con- 
ference to  another  without  his  own  consent  and  the 
consent  of  the  Conference  to  which  he  is  transferred. 

“ 10.  Local  preachers  and  ministers  to  be  put  upon 
a par  with  itinerant  preachers  and  ministers,  in  regard 
to  eligibility  to  orders. 

“11.  Local  ministers  to  be  alike  eligible  with  itin- 
erant ministers  to  a seat  in  the  General  Conference. 

“ 12.  Each  station,  circuit,  and  mission  to  be  al- 
lowed one  delegate  to  the  Annual  Conference ; in  the 
former  to  be  elected  by  the  male  members ; in  the  two 
latter,  by  the  quarterly  conference. 

“13.  No  veto  power  to  be  conceded  to  the  bishops. 

“ 14.  Incorporate  in  the  Discipline  the  following 
(Art.  YIII,  Sec.  5) : The  ministry  and  laymen  shall 
deliberate  in  one  body ; but  if,  upon  the  final  passage 
of  any  question,  it  be  required  by  three  members,  the 
ministers  and  laymen  shall  vote  separately,  and  the 
concurrence  of  a majority  of  both  classes  of  represent- 
atives shall  be  necessary  to  constitute  a vote  of  the 
Conference.  A similar  regulation  shall  be  observed  in 
the  Annual  Conference. 

“ 15.  In  the  Annual  Conference  the  laity  shall  have 


SOUTH  AND  METHODIST  PROTESTANTS  157 


the  right  to  participate  in  all  the  business,  except  such 
as  relates  to  the  trial  of  ministers  and  preachers.” 

Referring  to  the  Methodist  Protestant  Convention  of 
1867,  Doctor  Drinkhouse  says:  “The  overshadowing 
subject  occupying  the  attention  of  the  convention  was 
the  proposal  from  the  Church  South  already  cited. 
The  Committee  of  Conference  held  numerous  inter- 
views with  the  commissioners  of  that  Church,  and  the 
more  they  conferred  the  less  the  brethren  seemed  to 
be  able  to  understand  the  interpretation  placed  upon 
the  action  of  the  Church  South  as  made  by  the  com- 
missioners present.  It  slowly  dawned  upon  them, 
however,  after  the  first  answer  was  made  to  their 
proposal.  It  covered  fifteen  points,  made  upon  the 
supposition  that  the  commissioners  were  empowered  to 
‘ settle  terms  of  union.  . . 

“ It  is  an  open  secret  that  several  of  these  points 
were  made  by  brethren  opposed  to  the  ‘ Union  ’ alto- 
gether— riders  to  kill  the  bill.” 

The  next  day  the  two  commissions  met  together,  and 
the  commissioners  from  the  Church  South  replied  in 
order  to  the  terms  proposed. 

They  said  the  South  could  be  eliminated  from  the 
title  of  the  Church,  but  that  to  introduce  the  word 
Protestant  in  the  name  was  unnecessary;  that  the 
presiding  eldership  was  a matter  requiring  General 
Conference  action ; that  there  was  a tendency  in  the 
Church  to  have  a larger  number  of  bishops;  that 
stipulations  as  to  electing  bishops  nominated  by  an  An- 
nual Conference  was  beyond  the  power  of  the  com- 
missioners of  the  Church  South;  that  appeals  from 
pastoral  assignments  by  the  appointing  power  would 
impair  the  effective  supply  of  pastors  ; that  it  is  safest 


158 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


to  leave  the  determination  of  the  boundaries  of  the 
Maryland  Annual  Conference  with  the  General  Con- 
ference ; that  as  to  the  matter  of  trials  the  two 
Churches  had  about  the  same  system ; that  the 
tendency  was  to  put  itinerant  and  local  preachers  upon 
a par  as  to  their  eligibility  for  orders  ; that  already  a 
fair  ratio  of  representation  in  the  General  Conference  is 
allowed  local  preachers  ; that  a too  numerous  represen- 
tation in  the  General  Conference  would  be  cumber- 
some ; that  veto  power  by  the  bishops  was  a mooted 
question  and  was  not  under  the  control  of  the  commis- 
sioners from  the  Church  South  ; that  a division  of  the 
vote  in  the  General  Conference  was  already  provided 
for  on  a call  of  one-fifth,  but  that  such  a measure  in  the 
Annual  Conference  might  embarrass  its  proceedings ; 
and  that  the  right  of  the  laity  to  vote  on  all  questions 
might  safely  rest  with  the  General  Conference. 

This  was  the  substance  of  the  reply  to  the  response 
of  the  commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Church  by  the  representatives  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South. 

Doctor  Drinkhouse,  commenting  on  this  in  his  his- 
tory, remarks  that  “The  ‘ ecclesiastical  finesse’  devel- 
oped on  both  sides.  The  commissioners  made  reply  in 
order.  And  now  it  became  clear  even  to  hazy  vision 
that  what  was  proposed  was  not  ‘ Union,’  but  Absorp- 
tion. The  ministers  and  officials  would  be  received 
into  the  Church  South  and  the  members  would  be  re- 
ceived also ; but  not  a vanishing  point  was  to  be  left  of 
the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  as  such. 

“ And  yet  over  the  reply  which  made  this  fact 
manifest  the  brethren  higgled  and  disputed  and  took 
votes  by  ayes  and  nays  and  entered  upon  the  journal 


SOUTH  AND  METHODIST  PEOTESTANTS  159 


explanations  of  their  votes,  and  a number  of  them 
finally  uttered  a protest  against  the  whole  farcical 
business.  The  brethren  who  in  their  individual  and 
conferential  capacity  had  presumed  to  speak  for  the 
whole  Church  in  their  letters  and  personal  inter- 
views with  the  bishops,  etc.,  found  themselves  in 
an  embarrassing  position ; they  could  not  deliver  the 
goods.’’ 

The  Methodist  Protestant  General  Convention  then 
sitting  in  Montgomery  considered  three  reports  on  this 
subject.  The  first  contained  the  following : 

“ Resolved^  That  the  whole  subject  be  referred  for 
final  action  to  our  several  Annual  Conferences,  and 
that  the  president  thereof  be  requested  to  announce  the 
results  to  the  commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  expressing  the  hope  that  the  Confer- 
ences may  act  as  a unit.” 

The  second  report  was  from  a minority,  and  it  rec- 
ommended the  acceptance  of  the  terms  proposed  by 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  “ as  liberal, 
hopeful,  and  indicative  of  an  early  aflirmation  of  all 
the  points  of  difference,  and  therefore  we  accept  them 
and  recommend  to  our  Annual  Conferences  action  in 
harmony  with  acceptance.” 

The  third  report  was  from  a minority  of  one.  In 
dissenting  from  the  majority  report,  it  says  it  “ does 
not  agree  to  abide  the  decision  of  the  Conferences  with- 
out the  concurrence  of  at  least  a majority  of  the 
several  Annual  Conferences.” 

Finally  the  convention  decided  : 

“ That  the  convention  take  no  decisive  action  at  this 
time,  but  that  the  whole  subject  be  held  in  abeyance 
and  under  advisement  by  the  several  Annual  Confer- 


160 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


ences,  calmly  awaiting  the  development  and  indications 
of  Providence.” 

Doctor  Drinkhouse  remarks  that  “ The  commissioners 
of  the  Church  South  took  their  formal  leave  with 
courteous  greetings  and  resolves,  the  hand-in-glove 
brethren  relieving  the  disgust  these  commissioners 
could  not  altogether  disguise,  as  much  as  possible* 
And  so  ended  a fiasco  as  notable  as  that  of  the  Non- 
Episcopal  Union  Convention  of  the  brethren  North  and 
West,  but  attended  with  much  more  diastrous  results. 
It  is  but  fair  to  state  that  literally  the  bishops  were  be- 
guiled into  the  part  they  took  by  the  resolves  of  the 
Alabama,  Mississippi,  and  Yirginia  Conferences.  The 
fifteen  points  presented  were  never  submitted  by  them 
to  their  Annual  Conferences,  as  suggested,  and  the 
‘ Union  ’ of  the  two  Churches  was  abandoned  mutually. 
They  soon  began  the  work  of  ‘ taking  into  their  Church  ’ 
the  preachers  and  people  individually,  and  as  Annual 
Conferences  piecemeal,  but  always  at  the  invitation  of 
those  who  had  predetermined  to  unite  with  them.” 

The  negotiations  proved  futile  and  the  project  utterly 
failed,  and  to  this  day  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church 
and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  never  have 
united. 

But  the  remarkable  fact  that  stands  out  most  prom- 
inently in  this  connection  is  that  in  the  very  year  it 
proposed  union  with  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church, 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  rejected  the  ad- 
vances towards  union  made  by  the  representatives  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 


XYI 


THE  FOEMATION  OF  THE  METHODIST  CHURCH 
S early  as  1859  there  was  an  initiative  sugges- 


tion for  the  consolidation  of  the  separated 


X Jm.  section  of  the  Methodist  Protestants  in  the 
North  and  West  with  the  Wesleyan  Connection  of 
America. 

In  1864,  Dr.  Hiram  Mattison,  who  had  withdrawn 
from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  formed 
an  independent  church  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
in  conjunction  with  representatives  of  other  inde- 
pendent Methodist  Churches,  appointed  a committee 
to  confer  with  other  non-Episcopal  Methodists,  with  a 
view  to  effecting  a union  of  all  bodies  coming  under 
that  head. 

When  the  Civil  War  ended  the  proposition  gained 
in  popular  favor.  As  Doctor  Drinkhouse  remarks : 
“ ‘ Union  ’ was  in  the  air  among  Methodists  in  this 
epoch.  All  of  them  had  suffered  losses  from  the 
ravages  of  the  war,  and  seemed  to  be  casting  about  to 
recoup  themselves  out  of  each  other.  . . . The 

non-Episcopal  Methodists  of  the  North  and  West 
would  come  together;  yes,  there  were  no  differences 
among  them  to  keep  them  apart,  and  they  loved  each 
other  so  dearly  they  could  not  keep  from  ecclesiastical 
wedlock.” 

A convention  of  non-Episcopal  Methodists  met  and 
recommended  the  calling  of  a delegated  assembly  or 


161 


162 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


convention  to  meet  in  the  month  of  May,  1866,  in  the 
city  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  which  convention  would  have 
power  to  fix  the  basis  of  union  and  to  determine  the 
method  of  bringing  about  the  said  union. 

In  the  interim  Dr.  Hiram  Mattison  returned  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  However,  the  Conven- 
tion was  held  in  Cincinnati,  May  9-16,  1866. 

When  “the  non-Episcopal  Methodist  Convention” 
was  organized  it  was  found  that  the  majority  was 
composed  of  the  separated  Methodist  Protestants  in 
the  North  and  West,  including  West  Yirginia.  From 
the  Northern  and  Western  Methodists  came  one  hun- 
dred and  seven  delegates,  from  the  Wesleyan  Method- 
ist Connection,  twenty-eight,  and  four  delegates  from 
three  independent  churches,  making  a total  of  one  hun- 
dred and  thirty-nine.  In  addition  the  names  of  a con- 
siderable number  of  honorary  members  were  entered. 
No  representatives  were  sent  by  the  Free  Methodists. 
One  of  the  Wesleyans  was  elected  the  permanent 
president. 

On  the  second  day  the  Committee  on  Basis  of  Union 
presented  certain  Elementary  Principles  which  were 
essentially  those  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church 
slightly  modified,  which  principles  were  unanimously 
adopted. 

In  regard  to  the  title  of  the  new  and  combined 
Church  there  was  not  the  same  unanimity.  Two  titles 
were  proposed.  The  delegates  from  the  Wesleyan 
Connection  wanted  the  new  name  to  be  the  “ United 
Methodist  Church,”  while  the  representatives  from  the 
separated  Methodist  Protestant  body  wanted  it  called 
“ The  Methodist  Church.”  Finally  the  latter  title  was 
adopted  by  a vote  of  one  hundred  and  seven  to  twenty- 


FORMATION  OF  METHODIST  CHURCH  163 


four,  and  the  new  ecclesiastical  combination  was  started 
on  its  career  as  “ The  Methodist  Church,”  the  first  and 
only  Methodistic  body  to  carry  that  as  its  legal  title. 

One  subject  brought  for  the  consideration  of  the  Con- 
vention was  in  regard  to  “ secret  oath-bound  societies.” 
This  was  not  only  presented  but  by  some  it  was 
strongly  urged  that  something  be  incorporated  in  the 
church  law  against  membership  in  such  organizations. 
The  matter  gave  much  trouble,  but  the  Convention  re- 
fused to  make  the  prohibition  a part  of  the  corporate 
law  of  the  new  Church,  and  passed  an  act  in  which  the 
preamble  declared  that  “ Whereas  this  Convention  has 
left  all  moral  questions  with  the  local  churches,  recog- 
nizing their  right  to  determine  their  own  tests  of 
membership,”  etc.,  it  would  not  be  proper  for  the 
Convention  to  pass  a law  on  such  a matter. 

In  fact  it  was  essentially  the  same  avoidance  of  the 
issue  as  the  old  Methodist  Protestant  Church  in  its 
General  Conferences  put  in  their  decisions  in  reference 
to  slaveholding  by  its  ministers  and  members,  and 
somewhat  like  the  decisions  of  certain  General  Con- 
ferences of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  on  the 
slavery  question  in  a certain  stormy  period,  when  it 
pointed  to  the  peculiar  civil  laws  of  some  states. 

A Constitution  which  was  very  similar  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church,  as  re- 
vised by  th,e  Convention  of  1858,  was  adopted,  and  a 
committee  was  appointed  to  prepare  a Book  of  Dis- 
cipline to  harmonize  with  the  Constitution  just  agreed 
upon,  which  committee  was  ordered  to  report  to  the 
first  General  Conference  of  “ The  Methodist  Church,” 
to  be  held  in  Cleveland,  Ohio,  on  the  third  Wednesday 
in  the  month  of  May,  1867. 


164 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Thus  the  new  non-Episcopal  “ Methodist  Church  ” 
was  formed  and  moved  out  into  the  future. 

One  year  later,  in  May,  186Y,  and  in  the  city  of 
Cleveland,  the  first  General  Conference  of  The 
Methodist  Church  ” convened,  and  continued  in  session 
from  the  fifteenth  to  the  twenty-second  day  inclusive. 

Out  of  eighty-six  elected  representatives,  twenty -five 
were  absent,  and  only  four  ministers  and  three  laymen 
of  the  Wesleyan  Connection  were  officially  present. 
Doctor  Drinkhouse  observes  that  “ The  whole  denom- 
ination had  repudiated  the  Union.  . . . Less 

than  a dozen  of  their  ministers  came  to  the  Methodist 
Church,  and,  as  already  recorded,  a number  of  their 
leading  men  returned  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.” 

The  new  form  of  Discipline,  after  some  amendment, 
was  adopted.  One  proposition  which  was  accepted 
read  as  follows : 

“ Each  Annual  Conference  respectively  shall  have 
power  to  make  its  own  rules  and  regulations  in  regard 
to  stationing  its  ministers  and  preachers,  provided  it 
shall  make  no  rule  inconsistent  with  the  Constitution  of 
the  Methodist  Church.” 

The  statistics  seem  to  show  a membership  of  nearly 
50,000,  but  the  union  appeared  to  be  one  of  form  rather 
than  fact,  as  Joel  Martin,  in  his  ‘‘  Wesleyan  Manual ; or 
History  of  Wesleyan  Methodism,”  says:  ‘‘  In  the  final 
outcome  the  Methodist  Protestants  generally  went  into 
the  new  organizatian  which  took  the  name  of  the 
‘ Methodist  Church,’  while  the  Wesleyan  Methodists 
pretty  generally  remained  out  of  it  and  maintained 
their  own  denominational  identity.” 


XYII 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHUECH  EENEWS 
ITS  PEOFFEE  OF  UNION  WITH  THE  CHUECH 
SOUTH  AND  MAKES  ADVANCES 
TOWAEDS  OTHEE  BODIES 

ONCE  again,  namely,  in  1869,  at  their  regular 
Episcopal  Conference,  held  at  Meadville, 
Pennsylvania,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  bishops 
decided  to  make  another  effort  for  union,  and  deputed 
two  of  their  number,  namely.  Bishops  Morris  and 
Janes,  to  meet  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  at  their  regular  meeting  to  be  held  a 
few  weeks  later,  and  with  them  to  confer  concerning 
‘‘  methods  of  reunion.” 

With  these  deputies  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  sent  a written  communication,  in 
which  they  said : 

“ Dear  Brethren, — It  seems  to  us,  that  as  the  divi- 
sion of  those  Churches  of  our  country  which  are  of 
like  faith  and  order  has  been  productive  of  evil,  so  the 
reunion  of  them  would  be  productive  of  good.  As  the 
main  cause  of  separation  has  been  removed,  so  has  the 
chief  obstacle  to  restoration. 

“ It  is  fitting  that  the  Methodist  Church,  which  be- 
gan the  disunion,  should  not  be  the  last  to  achieve  the 
reunion,  . . . which  both  the  love  of  country  and 

of  religion  invoke,  and  which  the  providence  of  God 
seems  to  render  inevitable  at  no  distant  day. 

165 


166 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


“We  are  aware  that  there  are  difficulties  in  the  way. 
. . . We  have,  therefore,  deputed  our  colleagues, 

Morris  and  Janes,  to  confer  with  you,  alike  as  to  the 
propriety,  practicability,  and  methods  of  reunion, 
. . . to  see  the  several  parts  united  upon  a founda- 

tion honorable  to  all,  stable  as  truth,  and  harmonious 
with  the  fundamental  law  of  religion.” 

This  did  not  bring  a favorable  response.  Comment- 
ing on  this  episode,  the  Rev.  John  H.  Brunner,  D.  D.,  a 
minister  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and 
President  of  Hiwassee  College,  East  Tennessee, — ob- 
serves that  “ The  message  was  delivered.  Well  said, 
and  well  done ! But  union  was  the  last  thing  these 
Southern  bishops  wished  to  talk  about.  . . . Here 

was  a pivotal  point  in  history.  Emphatically  this  was 
a time  for  concerting  ‘ methods  ’ to  remove  the  diffi- 
culties between  the  two  bodies.  But  the  overtures 
contained  too  much,  and  that  ‘ much  ’ was  unionP 

Bishop  Matthew  Simpson,  in  his  “Cyclopedia  of 
Methodism,”  says  : “ In  April,  1869,  the  bishops  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  appointed  Bishops  Janes 
and  Simpson  to  visit  and  confer  with  the  bishops  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  who  met  in  St. 
Louis  the  next  month.  The  visit  was  made  and  a 
friendly  correspondence  ensued,  but  without  any  defi- 
nite action.” 

Doctor  Myers,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  in  his  book  entitled  “ The  Disruption  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,”  gives  an  account  of  this 
interview.  He  says : 

“ In  1869  the  Southern  bishops  met  in  St.  Louis, 
where  they  were  unexpectedly  visited  by  Bishops  Janes 
and  Simpson,  commissioned!by  the  Episcopal  College  of 


PROFFERS  OF  UNION  RENEWED  167 


the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  bear  fraternal 
greetings.  They  were  self-moved  to  do  this,  believing 
that,  as  ‘ chief  pastors,’  it  became  them  to  suggest  a re- 
union of  the  two  Churches.  They  were  received  with 
the  utmost  respect,  and  their  communication  answered 
courteously  but  candidly.  The  Southern  bishops  did 
not  conceive  ‘ reunion  ’ the  first  question  to  be  con- 
sidered ; it  must  be  preceded  by  the  establishment  of 
fraternal  feelings  and  relations  between  the  two 
Churches.  They  cited  the  final  words  of  Doctor 
Pierce  in  1848,  which,  in  1850,  had  been  adopted  as  the 
language  of  the  Church  South. 

“‘If  the  offer  of  fraternal  relations  is  ever  made 
upon  the  basis  of  the  Plan  of  Separation  of  1844,  the 
Church  South  will  cordially  entertain  the  proposition,’ 
Doctor  Pierce  wrote ; and  they  add,  ‘ You  cannot  ex- 
pect us  to  say  less  than  this,  that  the  words  of  our  rejected 
delegate  are  our  words.’  And  again : ‘ Allow  us,  in 
all  kindness,  brethren,  to  remind  you,  and  to  keep  the 
important  fact  of  history  prominent,  that  we  separated 
from  you  in  no  sense  in  which  you  did  not  separate 
from  us.  The  separation  was  by  compact,  and  mutual, 
and  nearer  approaches  to  each  other  can  be  conducted, 
with  hope  of  successful  issue,  only  on  this  basis.’ 

“ They  also  called  attention  ‘ to  the  conduct  of  some 
of  the  missionaries  and  agents  sent  into  ’ the  South, 
and  to  their  ‘ course  in  taking  possession  of  some  of  our 
houses  of  worship ; ’ and  granting  it  not  impossible 
‘ that  our  own  people  may  not  have  been  in  every 
instance  without  blame  towards  you,’  they  add : ‘ If 
any  offenses  against  the  law  of  love,  committed  by 
those  under  our  appointment,  any  aggressions  upon 
your  just  privileges  and  rights,  are  properly  represented 


168 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


to  us,  we  shall  stand  ready,  by  all  the  authority  and 
influence  we  have,  to  restrain  and  correct  them.’” 

Doctor  Myers  then  remarks : “ There  was  no  re- 
sponse.” 

Just  what  he  intends  by  this  is  not  evident.  If  he 
means  that  then  and  afterwards  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal bishops  made  no  reply  but  received  the  statement 
in  silence,  such  an  assertion  seems  improbable  and  does 
not  harmonize  with  Bishop  Simpson’s  remark  that  a 
friendly  correspondence  ensued.” 

For  the  Church  South  bishops  to  say  to  their 
brother  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
1869  “ that  we  separated  from  you  in  no  sense  in 
which  you  did  not  separate  from  us  ” was  rhetorical 
and  striking  in  its  form,  but  it  was  not  an  accurate 
statement.  It  is  an  admission  that  they  of  the  South 
did  separate  but  it  is  not  evidence  that  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  separated  from  the  Church  South. 
That  is  merely  an  assertion. 

That  the  founders  of  the  Church  South  did  the 
separating  is  a plain  fact  proven  by  their  own  records. 
The  representatives  of  the  thirteen  Southern  Con- 
ferences, meeting  in  Louisville,  Kentucky,  in  May, 
1845,  formally  declared  that  they  then  and  there  dis- 
solved their  connection  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  as  the  resolution  read,  we  ‘‘  do  solemnly  de- 
clare the  jurisdiction  hitherto  exercised  over  said 
Annual  Conferences  (in  the  slaveholding  states),  by  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
entirely  dissolved,”  “ and  are  constituted  a separate 
ecclesiastical  connexion.” 

At  that  time  the  General  Conference  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  was  not  in  session,  but  by  its  ad- 


PROFFERS  OF  UNION  RENEWED  169 


journment  had  gone  out  of  existence  about  a year 
before,  so  the  expression  was  equivalent  to  saying  that 
these  Southern  Conferences  withdrew  from  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  their  use 
of  the  title  of  the  denomination  shows  that  they  recog- 
nized the  fact  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was 
in  existence  at  that  time  and  that  it  remained  in  exist- 
ence after  they  declared  their  relation  dissolved.  They 
voted  their  connection  with  it  dissolved,  and,  so, 
separated  from  it,  but  the  old  Church  remained  the 
same  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America. 

That  was  the  only  dissolution  that  took  place.  The 
Southern  Convention  did  the  separating,  but  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  never  went  into  an 
organizing  convention  like  the  delegates  from  ‘‘the 
slaveholding  states  ” to  organize  or  reorganize  itself, 
or  voted  to  dissolve  its  connection  with  the  Church 
South.  It  was,  therefore,  inaccurate  for  the  bishops  of 
the  latter  Church  to  say  to  the  bishops  of  the  Continu- 
ing Methodist  Episcopal  Church  that  the  Church 
South  separated  from  the  old  Church  in  no  sense  in 
which  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  did  not  separate 
from  it.  The  dissolving  was  by  one  side  and  by  one 
side  only. 

The  remark  in  question  was  written  about  twenty-five 
years  after  the  separation  by  the  Southern  Conferences 
and  the  intervening  years  had  been  a period  of  intense 
feeling,  and  strenuous  events  may  have  clouded  the 
memory  and  affected  the  judgment,  while  with  the  ex- 
citement still  fresh  it  was  difficult  to  see  facts  in  their 
true  perspective. 

Nothing  daunted,  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist 


170 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Episcopal  Church  persisted  in  their  efforts  to  bring  the 
two  Churches  together. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  in  1868,  had  considered  the  question  of  union 
between  Methodist  Churches.  From  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Zion  Church, 
then  in  session,  had  come  a telegram  asking  “ whether 
a deputation  from  that  body,  bearing  proposals  for 
fraternization  and  union,  would  be  received.”  Upon  the 
announcement,  the  Reverend  Dr.  Daniel  Curry  moved 
“ That  we  will  cordially  welcome  a delegation  from  the 
General  Conference  of  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal 
Zion  Church  for  consultation  and  ultimate  union  of  that 
Church  with  our  own,”  and  this  was  adopted. 

The  next  day  a telegram  was  received  from  the 
General  Conference  of  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  “giving  information  that  a committee  from 
that  body,  bearing  proposals  of  affiliation  and  union, 
would  be  sent  to  this  General  Conference,”  and  a com- 
mittee of  reception  was  appointed. 

The  same  day  came  a memorial  signed  by  eight 
clergymen  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  “ pray- 
ing this  General  Conference  to  appoint  a commission 
of  Bishops  and  Clergy,  to  meet  a similar  commission  to 
be  appointed  by  the  General  Convention  of  their  Church, 
with  reference  to  a union  of  the  two  Churches  in  one 
communion.” 

This  was  referred  to  a special  committee. 

A committee  was  appointed  “ to  receive,  consider 
and  report  upon,  to  this  Conference,  any  proposals” 
from  the  two  African  Churches  “ for  union  with  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.” 

When  the  report  of  the  committee  to  confer  with 


PEOFFERS  OF  UNION  RENEWED  171 


the  delegate  from  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal 
Zion  Church  was  under  consideration,  it  was  moved 
that,  in  case  of  union,  the  said  Church  “ shall  be  en- 
titled to  a jpro  rata  representation  in  the  Episcopal 
Board  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church”  but  this 
was  laid  on  the  table.  The  Conference  favorably  en- 
tertained the  proposition  for  union  but  adopted  a refer- 
ence to  a joint  commission  to  report  to  the  next  Gen- 
eral Conference. 

On  motion  of  Gilbert  Haven  it  was  “ Resolved^  That 
the  Commission  ordered  by  the  General  Conference  to 
confer  with  a like  Commission  from  the  African  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Zion  Church,  to  arrange  for  the  uuion  of 
that  body  with  our  own,  be  also  empowered  to  treat 
with  a similar  Commission  from  any  other  Methodist 
Church  that  may  desire  a like  union.” 

This  was  broad  enough  to  cover  every  denomination 
in  the  Methodistic  family  and  was  so  intended. 

In  regard  to  the  request  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
clergyman  it  was  ordered  ‘‘  That  a committee  of  seven 
be  appointed,  who  shall  constitute  a committee  of  Cor- 
respondence on  Church  Union,  who  shall  reply  to  the 
letters  addressed  to  this  body  on  this  subject,  and  who 
shall  also  carry  on  such  other  correspondence  thereon 
as  they  may  deem  necessary,  and  report  to  the  next 
session  of  the  General  Conference.” 

Union  was  in  the  air  and  the  General  Conference 
was  making  the  broadest  provisions  on  that  subject. 

The  General  Conference  also  voted  in  favor  of  a 
joint  commission  with  the  Evangelical  Association,  to 
confer  together  and  see  if  they  can  agree  on  a basis  of 
union,  and  report  their  action  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1872.” 


172 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


It  is  to  be  observed  that  not  one  of  these  proposed 
unions  ever  was  consummated. 

This  General  Conference  adopted  the  following: 
“ That  as  the  disruption  of  ecclesiastical  and  fraternal 
bonds  between  Christian  Churches  North  and  South, 
and  especially  in  our  own  Church,  had  the  effect  largely 
to  remove  the  moral  obstructions  to  the  late  war  and 
precipitate  that  fearful  tragedy,  so  now  also  would  the 
restoration  of  fraternal  harmony  and  fellowship  among 
all  Christian  bodies  greatly  draw  together  in  good-will 
and  charity  the  elements  of  civil  society,  and  hasten 
the  restoration  of  the  Federal  Union  to  its  former  pro- 
portions, and  to  more  than  its  former  beauty  and  per- 
fection ; and  we  do,  therefore,  earnestly  commend  to 
all  Christians  especially  to  cultivate  towards  each  other, 
and  towards  all  men,  the  spirit  of  peace,  gentleness, 
forbearance,  and  of  charity  and  good-will,  particularly 
reminding  all  ministers  of  our  own  connection  of  our 
solemn  ordination  vow,  that  ‘ we  will  maintain  and  set 
forward,  as  much  as  lieth  in  us,  quietness,  peace,  and 
love  among  all  Christian  people,  and  especially  among 
them  that  are,  or  shall  be,  committed  to  our  charge.’  ” 

This  deliverance  presented  a profound  philosophy  for 
it  is  plain  that  when  Christian  denominations  lost  their 
national  nature  and  portions  of  them  became  sectional, 
limiting  themselves  to  a special  section  of  the  country, 
they  weakened  the  bonds  that  bound  them  to  the  whole 
country  and  the  tendency  was  to  isolate  them  from  the 
rest  of  the  nation.  Politically  that  had  a disintegrat- 
ing trend. 

On  the  other  hand  denominations  having  a country- 
wide unity  tended  to  preserve  and  strengthen  national 
unity.  Hence  “ the  restoration  of  fraternal  harmony 


PROFFERS  OF  UNION  RENEWED  1Y3 


and  fellowship”  in  the  coming  together  of  separated 
members  of  the  same  denominational  family  would 
“ greatly  draw  together  in  good-will  and  charity  the 
elements  of  civil  society  ” and  strengthen  the  solidarity 
of  the  nation. 

The  deliverance  evidently  referred,  particularly,  to 
the  unfortunate  withdrawal  of  the  thirteen  Southern 
Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  1845, 
and  with  great  plainness  expressed  a strong  desire  for 
the  restoration  of  denominational  unity.  It  would  be 
difficult  to  conceive  of  anything  more  dignified  and 
more  direct. 

Following  up  the  spirit  of  union  manifested  by  the 
General  Conference  of  1868,  and  under  the  comprehen- 
sive authority  given  the  Commission  which  was  given 
its  commission,  “empowered  to  treat  with  a similar 
Commission  from  any  other  Methodist  Church  that 
may  desire  a like  union,”  the  Commission  decided  to 
approach  the  General  Conference  of  the  Church  South 
through  two  representatives,  and  “ the  Commission  ap- 
pointed by  the  General  Conference  requested  Bishop 
Janes  and  Dr.  W.  L.  Harris  to  attend  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  at 
Memphis,  in  1870.” 

The  authorization  for  the  two  representatives  was 
perfectly  legitimate,  and,  duly  empowered,  they  went 
to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Church  South,  which 
met  in  the  year  just  specified. 

The  representatives  who  thus  appeared  in  behalf  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  were  conspicuous  men. 
One  was  a bishop  and  later  the  other  became  a bishop. 
Dr.  William  L.  Harris  was  the  secretary  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  General  Conference  and  at  the  General 


174 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Conference  of  1868  had  been  elected  First  Assistant 
Corresponding  Secretary  of  the  Missionary  Society. 

Bishop  Edmund  S.  Janes  in  a sense  seemed  to  link 
the  two  Churches  together,  for  he  had  been  elected  to 
the  Episcopate  in  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  and 
largely  by  Southern  votes. 

These  representatives  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  presented  a written  paper  to  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Church  South,  in  which  they  said : 

“ There  are  now  no  sufficient  reasons  why  a union 
may  not  be  effected  on  terms  equally  honorable  to  all ; 
. . . appoint  a similar  commission  to  meet  with  us 

previous  to  our  next  General  Conference.  . . . 

“We  are,  dear  brethren,  yours  in  Christ  Jesus.” 

After  the  communication  had  been  read.  Bishop 
Janes  followed  with  some  explanatory  remarks,  in 
which  he  observed : 

“ It  was  the  intention,  in  a dignified  and  delicate 
manner,  to  make  this  communication,  and  it  was  not 
intended  to  be  heralded  in  the  papers.  . . . The 

act  of  the  General  Conference  was  limited.  ...  I 
do  not  understand  that  we  are  authorized  to  take  any 
definite  action,  but  to  learn  what  embarrassments  are 
in  the  way  of  union,  and  to  ascertain  in  what  manner 
union  may  be  effected.  I do  not  think  any  of  us  can 
expect  that  perfect  organic  union  can  be  effected  at 
once  without  much  negotiation  ; the  history  of  the  past 
five  years  will  not  justify  us  in  entertaining  such  a hope, 
and  yet  we  do  believe  that  the  prayer  of  Christ  will  be 
heard,  and  the  day  come  when  His  people  shall  be  one.” 

The  result  of  this  fraternal  approach  was  that  the 
right  of  those  who  appeared  in  behalf  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  was  challenged  on  the  ground  that 


PROFFERS  OF  UNION  RENEWED  175 


the  representatives  were  not  duly  commissioned  and 
empowered  to  treat  for  union,  and  the  challenge  was 
made  by  the  Reverend  John  C.  Keener,  D.  D.,  one  of 
the  leading  ministers  of  the  Church  South,  and  he 
challenged  the  overture  “ on  the  ground  that  the  com- 
missioners lacked  needful  authority.” 

The  matter  was  referred  to  a committee  and  it 
brought  in  an  adverse  report,  and  the  paper  adopted 
by  this  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  contained  the  following  as  its  fourth 
resolution : 

“ Resolved^  moreover.  That  if  this  distinguished  com- 
mission were  fully  clothed  with  authority  to  treat  with 
us  for  union,  it  is  the  judgment  of  this  Conference  that 
the  true  interests  of  the  Church  of  Christ  require  and 
demand  the  maintenance  of  our  separate  and  distinct 
organization.” 

In  1870,  the  General  Conference  of  the  Church  South 
also  passed  this  among  other  resolutions : 

“ Resolved^  That  the  action  of  our  bishops  in  their  last 
Annual  Meeting,  in  St.  Louis,  in  response  to  the  mes- 
sage from  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  has  the  full  indorsement  of  this  General  Con- 
ference, and  accurately  defines  our  position  in  reference 
to  any  overtures  which  may  proceed  from  that  Church 
having  in  them  an  official  and  proper  recognition  of 
that  body.” 

Thus  the  General  Conference  of  the  Church  South 
adopted  and  promulgated  the  utterances  of  the  bishops 
of  that  Church  made  in  response  to  the  advances  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  bishops  at  the  St.  Louis  meeting. 

Just  what  that  meant  we  are  told  by  a leading  writer 
of  the  Southern  Church. 


1Y6 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Referring  to  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  1870,  Doctor 
Myers,  of  that  Church,  in  his  book  entitled  “ The  Dis- 
ruption of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,”  says : 

“ Here,  then,  is  the  platform  on  which  Southern 
Methodism  stands — propounded  by  Doctor  Pierce  in 
1848,  confirmed  by  the  General  Conference  in  1850, 
reasserted  by  the  bishops  in  1869,  and  again  confirmed 
unanimously  in  1870  by  a full  General  Conference  of 
lay  and  clerical  delegates ; namely,  her  foundation,  as 
a separate  ecclesiastical  organization,  was,  by  authority, 
laid  in  the  Plan  of  Separation  ; and  this  fact  must  be 
recognized  as  the  basis  of  a permanent  peace  and  cor- 
dial fraternity.” 

That  meant  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  would  neither  have  union  nor  fraternity  with 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  until  it  accepted  the 
interpretation  the  Church  South  placed  upon  the  acts 
of  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  and  particularly  on 
what  the  South  persisted  in  calling  the  “ Plan  of  Sepa- 
ration,” and  to  say  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
separated  from  the  Church  South  just  as  the  Church 
South  had  separated  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  This  was  a hard  ultimatum  for  the  old  Church 
for  from  the  beginning  it  had  denied  this  interpretation 
and  regarded  that  sort  of  a double  separation  as  an 
absurdity  and  contrary  to  the  facts. 

The  response  to  this  overture  for  union  made  by 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  representatives  was  a posi- 
tive rejection  by  this  General  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  the  emphatic  decla- 
ration “ that  the  true  interests  of  the  Church  of  Christ 
[not  merely  of  the  Church  South,  but  the  whole  of 


PROFFERS  OF  UNION  RENEWED  177 


“ the  Church  of  Christ  ”]  require  and  demand  the  main- 
tenance of  our  separate  and  distinct  organization,”  and 
this  was  years  after  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  and  the 
extinction  of  slavery,  which,  therefore,  could  no  longer 
be  a live  issue. 

Commenting  on  this,  the  Church  South  author,  Doc- 
tor Brunner,  says : “ The  issue  was  joined  ; the  North- 
ern Church  for  union  / the  Southern  against  it ! John 
Christian  Keener,  having  championed  the  Southern 
view,  was  made  a bishop  on  the  spot.” 

Summarizing  these  events  we  find  : 

The  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in 
1865,  had  publicly  pronounced  in  favor  of  the  union  of 
their  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
and  this  action  evoked  the  reply  from  the  bishops  of  the 
latter  Church  that  they  could  “ anticipate  no  good  re- 
sult from  even  entertaining  the  subject  of  reunion.” 

In  1866  two  great  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  namely,  the  New  York  East 
and  the  New  York,  communicated  with  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Church  South,  and  while  that  body 
agreed  to  a day  of  prayer  it  declined  to  accept  the  sug- 
gestion to  create  a commission  on  the  subject  of  the 
union  of  the  Churches,  but  reiterated  their  adherence 
to  their  “ separate  and  distinct  organization.” 

In  1869  the  Methodist  Episcopal  bishops  designated 
two  of  their  number  to  meet  the  bishops  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
ferring “ as  to  the  propriety,  practicability,  and  methods 
of  reunion,”  but  it  resulted  in  failure. 

The  next  year,  1870,  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  convened  and  to  it 
the  Commission  of  the  General  Conference  of  the 


178 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Methodist  Episcopal  Church  sent  a deputation  of  two 
honored  men,  which  deputation  proposed  the  union  of 
the  two  Churches  and  the  appointment  of  commissions 
of  Conference.  The  proffer  was  declined,  the  author- 
ity of  the  deputation  was  denied,  and  the  Conference 
declared  in  favor  of  maintaining  the  “separate  and 
distinct  organization.” 

Thus  all  these  varied  and  continuous  efforts  by 
various  parties,  speaking  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  favor  of  the  union  of  two  Churches,  seemed 
to  be  fruitless  and  to  have  resulted  in  absolute  failure. 

No  attempt  will  be  made  to  deny  the  right  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  remain  a “ sep- 
arate and  distinct  organization  ” if  it  so  desired.  On 
the  other  hand  no  one  can  deny  the  earnestness  and 
sincerity  of  those  who  undertook  to  speak  for  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  in  the  effort  for  union. 

The  aggregate  result  of  the  attempts  was  enough  to 
discourage  average  mortals,  but  the  leaders  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  did  not  despair. 


XYIII 


A NEW  COLOEED  CHUECH 

IN  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  in  1866,  when  the  body  de- 
clined the  advances  towards  union  made  by  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  yet  opened  negotia- 
tions looking  towards  union  with  the  Methodist  Prot- 
estant Church,  it  also  adopted  measures  to  prepare  for 
the  organization  of  the  colored  ministers  and  members 
of  the  Church  South  into  an  independent  colored  de- 
nomination. 

This  was  soon  after  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  and 
the  matter  came  up  in  the  first  General  Conference  of 
the  Church  South,  following  the  close  of  that  conflict. 

Slavery  having  been  destroyed,  and  the  status  of  the 
colored  people  in  the  South  having  been  changed,  the 
Church  South  seemed  to  conclude  that  it  would  be 
better  for  the  people  of  color  to  have  ecclesiastical  in- 
dependence also.  So  the  Church  South  General  Con- 
ference, in  1866,  decided  that  if  its  colored  membership 
desired  to  be  made  independent,  the  bishops,  “ if,  and 
when,  their  godly  judgment  approved,  should  organ- 
ize them  into  an  independent  body.” 

Following  this  authorization  the  bishops  of  the 
Church  South,  in  the  year  immediately  after  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1866,  formed  a number  of  colored 
Annual  Conferences,  or  as  Bishop  McTyeire,  of  the 

179 


180 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Church  South,  more  specifically  states,  the  colored 
people  “ were  set  off  into  circuits,  districts,  and  Annual 
Conferences.”  ^ 

This  arrangement  proved  acceptable  and  in  a little 
while  the  preachers  in  these  new  Conferences  and  the 
members  of  the  Churches  within  their  bounds  expressed 
a desire  for  an  independent  Church  organization,  and 
the  desire  was  based  on  the  ground  that  it  would  be 
better  for  both  white  and  colored  people  to  have  their 
own  separate  Churches  and  schools  and  for  each  to  have 
ecclesiastical  independence  and  separation.^ 

The  preachers  in  the  colored  Annual  Conferences, 
therefore,  requested  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  appoint  a com- 
mission from  the  said  General  Conference  to  confer 
with  delegated  colored  men  representing  the  colored 
Conferences. 

The  result  was  that  the  Church  South  General  Con- 
ference set  off  its  colored  ministers  and  members  and 
organized  them  into  a new  denomination  under  the  title 
“ The  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Amer- 
ica,” which  was  the  name  chosen  by  the  colored  people 
themselves. 

The  new  body  was  constituted  at  a convention  held 
in  Jackson,  Tennessee,  in  the  month  of  December,  1870. 
Bishops  Paine  and  McTyeire  presided  at  this  “ Con- 
ventional General  Conference,”  as  it  was  called,  and 
doubtless  guided  the  convention  by  their  counsel,  at 
least  in  a general  way. 

The  Conventional  General  Conference  ” of  the  new 
Church  adopted  the  Book  of  Discipline  of  the  Church 

* Bishop  McTyeire,  “History  of  Methodism,”  p.  671. 

^ Bishop  Holsey,  iu  The  Independent,  March  5,  1891. 


A NEW  COLORED  CHURCH 


181 


South,  without  any  material  alterations,  or,  as  Bishop 
McTyeire  puts  it,  “ The  Discipline  of  the  parent  body 
was  adopted,  without  material  alterations.”  ^ 

This  organizing  General  Conference  also  elected  two 
colored  ministers  to  be  bishops,  namely,  W.  H.  Miles 
and  R.  H.  Yanderhorst  and  they  were  set  apart  for  the 
episcopal  office  by  Bishops  Paine  and  McTyeire  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  Jackson,  Ten- 
nessee, in  December,  1870.^ 

Bishop  McTyeire  states  that  “ The  General  Confer- 
ence, which  authorized  this  proceeding,  also  ordered 
that  all  church  property  that  had  been  acquired,  held, 
and  used  for  Methodist  negroes  in  the  past  be  turned 
over  to  them  by  Quarterly  Conferences  and  trustees.”  ^ 
The  amount  of  property  thus  turned  over  to  the  new 
colored  denomination  has  been  variously  estimated  at 
$1,000,000  to  $1,500,000. 

The  body  “determined  to  elect  bishops  for  life. 
. . . Membership  in  the  body  is  restricted  to  negroes. 

The  Discipline  forbids  the  using  of  the  church  houses 
for  political  speeches  and  meetings.”  ^ 

We  may  form  an  idea  of  the  number  of  colored  peo- 
ple who  went  out  from  the  Church  South  in  1870 
from  the  fact  that  the  colored  membership  in  that 
Church  in  1866  was  78,742.® 

That  it  has  had  a very  considerable  growth  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  in  1913  the  Colored  Methodist  Episco- 

^ Bishop  MoTyeire’s  “ History  of  Methodism,”  p.  671. 

p.  671.  p.  671. 

^Dr.  J.  M.  Buckley,  “A  History  of  Methodists  in  the  United 
States  ” (The  American  Church  History  Series),  New  York,  1896, 
p.  598. 

® Bishop  McTyeire,  “ History  of  Methodism,”  p,  670. 


182 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


pal  Church  had  2,901  ministers,  2,867  churches,  and 
234,721  communicant  members/ 

When  this  new  colored  Church  was  constituted  prac- 
tically all  the  colored  Methodists  in  the  United  States 
of  America  were  in  independent  colored  Churches  ex- 
cepting those  who  were  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  who  probably  numbered  less  than  two  hundred 
thousand  at  that  time. 

*Dr.  H.  K.  Carroll  in  “ World  Almanac  ” for  1914. 


XIX 


CONSOLIDATION  IN  CANADA 
S has  been  seen  the  General  Conference  of  the 


Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  1828  conceded 


-i-  ^ the  right  of  independence  to  its  Conference  in 
Canada  and  set  it  off  to  be  a separate  Church,  and  it  be- 
came the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  Canada. 

As  such,  in  its  entirety,  it  maintained  a separate 
existence  only  a short  time. 

In  that  period  there  was  also  another  Methodism  in 
the  British  part  of  North  America,  so  that  while  the 
Canadian  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  in  Upper 
Canada,  British  Wesleyans  were  in  Lower  Canada  and 
Nova  Scotia,  for  the  British  Wesleyan  Conference  had 
sent  missionaries  from  Great  Britain  to  these  parts  of 
the  British  possessions  in  North  America. 

Even  while  the  American  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  administered  in  Canada  there  was  an  under- 
standing between  the  Methodist  Episcopalians  and  the 
Wesleyans  to  the  effect  that  the  former  would  work  in 
Upper  Canada  while  the  latter  should  operate  in  Lower 
Canada. 

The  British  patriotic  spirit  which  had  led  to  the  de- 
tachment of  the  Canada  Conference  from  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
and  the  ecclesiastical  attachment  of  the  Canadian 
Methodist  Episcopalians  to  Great  Britain,  soon  led  to  a 
rapprochement  between  some  in  the  new  Methodist 


183 


184 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Episcopal  Church  of  Canada  and  the  Wesleyans  who 
were  directly  related  to  the  Conference  in  England. 

It  was  recognized  that  Canada  was  a province  of 
Great  Britain  and  quite  a number  reasoned  that  the 
proper  thing  v/ould  be  to  have  one  Methodism  and 
that  of  the  British  Wesleyan  type.  So,  as  early  as 
1832,  when  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Conference  in 
Canada  had  been  independent  only  about  four  years,  a 
correspondence  on  the  subject  of  union  began  between 
the  missionaries  of  the  British  Wesleyan  body  in  Lower 
Canada,  and  leading  ministers  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  Upper  Canada. 

The  result  was  that  a majority  of  the  Canadian 
Methodist  Episcopalians  in  the  Conference  concluded 
that  it  was  wise  for  them  to  affiliate  with  the  Wesleyan 
Methodists  and  make  one  body  of  British  Wesley ans  in 
these  British  provinces.  So,  in  1833,  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Conference  in  Canada  agreed  to  unite  with 
the  Wesleyans  in  Canada,  and  the  whole  movement 
evidently  grew  out  of  the  war  of  1812-1814  between 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain. 

Those  who  went  into  this  combination  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  Canada  gave  up  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  title,  and  the  united  body  took  the 
Wesleyan  Methodist  name,  changed  the  Episcopal 
polity,  and  conformed  to  the  Discipline  and  mode  of 
the  British  Wesleyan  Conference,  were  connected  with 
the  parent  body  in  England,  and,  as  an  affiliated,  or,  to 
some  extent,  a dependent  Conference,  received  a 
President  from  the  body  in  Great  Britain. 

However,  the  act  carrying  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Conference  of  Canada  into  this  combination  had  been 
consummated  without  any  formal  and  direct  consultation 


CONSOLIDATION  IN  CANADA 


185 


with  the  people  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
of  Canada.  As  a consequence  there  was  considerable 
dissatisfaction  with  the  transaction  which  by  some  was 
declared  to  be  illegal. 

A forceful  minority  denied  the  right  of  the  Confer- 
ence to  make  such  a radical  change  which  amounted  in 
intent  to  the  destruction  of  the  Church,  and  asserted 
that  it  was  a violation  of  the  agreement  between  the 
Canadian  Conference  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  which  had  per- 
mitted, granted,  and  recognized  the  independence  of  the 
Canadian  Methodist  Episcopalians. 

These  dissatisfied  parties  who  preferred  the  Ameri- 
can plan  and  who  protested  against  having  their 
Church  taken  away  from  them  and  their  being  merged 
into  another  body,  demanded  that  their  own  organiza- 
tion, the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  Canada,  be 
continued. 

Kepresenting  these  persons,  certain  superannuated 
ministers  and  local  preachers,  holding  these  views,  met 
in  June,  1831,  and  decided  to  continue  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  of  Canada,  and  the  outcome  was  that 
this  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  thus  continued  took  a 
new  start  and  grew  to  considerable  proportions. 

There  also  appeared  another  form  of  Methodism 
called  The  New  Connection. 

These  different  forms  of  Methodism  worked  side  by 
side  for  another  generation  and  more,  and,  then,  in 
1874,  a union  was  effected  between  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  of  Canada,  the  British  Wesleyans  in 
Canada,  and  the  New  Connection  Methodists  in  the 
same  country,  and  the  new  combination  was  called  The 
Methodist  Church  of  Canada, 


186 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


In  this  consolidation  there  were  modifications  of 
polity,  thus  instead  of  presiding  elders  appeared  the 
title  Chairmen  of  Districts,  the  title  Bishops  was 
dropped,  while  the  episcopal  idea  appeared  in  a modi- 
fied form  of  superintendency  with  Superintendent  as 
the  title  of  the  chief  executive  ofificer. 

In  Canada  there  were  also,  and  are,  what  are  called 
Primitive  Methodists  and  the  Primitive  Methodist  body 
remains  distinct. 

There  remains  another  body  of  Methodists  in  Canada 
which  perpetuates  the  title  Episcopal.  It,  likewise,  had 
a relationship  to  the  great  Republic  to  the  South. 

When  slavery  existed  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  colored  people  fled  from  that  servitude,  and, 
passing  through  the  Northern  States,  settled  in  Canada. 

AV'hat  ecclesiastical  training  they  had  received  they 
carried  with  them  into  their  new  country  and  as  a re- 
sult organized  a Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  or,  more 
exactly,  constituted  a Conference  in  connection  with 
the  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United 
States. 

This  colored  body  became  independent  in  1856,  and 
adopted  as  its  name  The  British  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

This  Church  has  two  Conferences,  the  Ontario  and 
the  Nova  Scotia.  It  has  also  a mission  in  Bermuda. 
Though  not  a very  large  body  its  members  have  pre- 
ferred the  independence  of  their  own  color. 


XX 


UNION  OF  THE  METHODIST  AND  THE  METH- 
ODIST PEOTESTANT  CHUECHES 

The  union  of  the  antislavery  wing  of  the  Meth- 
odist Protestant  Church  with  the  Wesleyan 
Connection  of  America  was  not  a complete 
union  and  had  not  the  success  anticipated  in  the  forma- 
tion of  “ The  Methodist  Church.” 

Practical  difficulties  developed  in  the  attempted  re- 
adjustment. Thus  as  one  historian  states:  “In  the 
West  the  gravity  of  the  situation  as  to  the  ‘ Methodist  ’ 
Church  confronted  the  brethren.  The  old  name  (Meth- 
odist Protestant)  was  graven  in  stone  on  tablets  facing 
nearly  all  the  church  property  and  in  all  the  deeds.  It 
was  not  found  an  easy  legality  to  change  the  name  in 
the  chartered  funds  and  institutions;  the  reason  for 
making  it  and,  much  more,  for  retaining  it,  had  passed 
away ; Doctor  Brown  and  Doctor  Collier,  in  the  Meth- 
odist Recorder^  advocated  a return  to  the  Methodist 
Protestant  name,  in  June,  1870,  and  others  united  in 
discussing  the  proposal.” 

The  second  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Church  was  held  in  1871.  The  record  reads:  “Min- 
utes of  the  Second  General  Conference  of  the  Method- 
ist Church  (formerly  Methodist  Protestant),  held  at 
Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  May  17-27,  1871.” 

A resolution  was  offered : “ That  the  committee  on 

187 


188 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


legislation  be  instructed  to  inquire  whether  the  change 
of  name  from  Methodist  Protestant  to  that  of  Method- 
ist Church  does  not  require  a more  particular  statement 
of  the  steps  taken  to  bring  about  that  change,  with  the 
view  of  more  fully  assisting  in  litigation  in  regard  to 
church  property.” 

Fraternal  messengers  from  the  Maryland  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  were  received  and 
heard,  as  were  fraternal  messengers  from  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church.  One  of  the  latter  was  Dr.  S.  M. 
Merrill,  who  the  next  year  was  elected  a bishop. 

The  General  Conference  appointed  five  fraternal 
messengers  to  the  ensuing  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Protestant  Church.  This  was  significant. 

Another  significant  fact  was  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee on  Methodistic  Union,  in  which  appeared  the 
following : ‘‘  In  the  love  of  the  Saviour,  and  by  the 
precious  memories  of  those  honored  servants  of  God, 
who  were  founders  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church, 
we  invite  our  brethren  to  meet  us  in  an  effort  to  effect 
union  of  the  two  Churches.  We  recommend  that  the 
fraternal  delegates  appointed  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence be  constituted  a Commission  to  receive  any  propo- 
sitions looking  towards  union  that  may  be  made  by  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church, 
and  report  the  same  to  the  next  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Church.  We  also  hope  that  the  litera- 
ture of  both  Churches  will  be  freely  interchanged.” 

The  signs  indicated  a drawing  together  and  pointed 
towards  a combination. 

In  the  next  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Protestant  Church  held  in  Lynchburg,  Ya.,  in  May, 
1874,  the  “ Reverend  Dr.  Wesley  Kenney,  from  the 


METHODIST  AND  PROTESTANT  189 


General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
was  introduced,  and  addressed  the  Conference  frater- 
nally and  officially,”  thus  showing  at  least  the  desire  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  for  fraternal  and  close 
relations  with  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  which, 
at  that  time,  was  mainly  in  the  South,  though  there 
were  a few  representatives  from  Pennsylvania,  Indiana, 
Iowa,  and  Colorado. 

From  the  Methodist  Church  fraternal  greetings  were 
brought  by  the  Reverend  Alexander  Clark,  editor,  and 
James  Robison,  publisher,  of  the  Methodist  Recorder. 

Fraternity  had  come  to  the  front  and  with  it  came 
the  suggestion  of  organic  union,  and  a special  com- 
mittee presented  a report  in  which  appeared  the  fol- 
lowing resolution  : 

“ Resolved.,  That  a committee  of  nine  persons  be  ap- 
pointed by  this  General  Conference  to  confer  with  any 
like  commission  from  any  Methodist  body  in  America 
who  may  signify  a desire  to  confer  with  them  upon  the 
subject  of  union  with  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  ; 
and  especially  with  a committee  of  nine,  to  be  appointed 
by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Church, 
which  has  made  overtures  to  us  for  a reunion,  believing 
it  to  be  the  desire  of  the  majority  of  the  members  of 
the  Methodist  Church  to  effect  a union  of  the  Method- 
ist and  Methodist  Protestant  Churches,  upon  terms 
which  shall  be  alike  agreeable  and  honorable  to  each  ; 
and  to  submit  the  terms  of  union  to  the  General  Con- 
vention hereinbefore  provided  for.” 

This  was  adopted  “ with  great  unanimity.” 

The  report  also  provided  for  the  holding  of  a General 
Convention  to  take  into  consideration  ‘‘  certain  changes 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  Church,”  which  convention 


190 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


was  to  meet  at  Abingdon,  Virginia,  on  the  first  Friday 
in  May,  1878. 

Not  one  of  the  commissioners  appointed  by  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Church  appeared 
at  Lynchburg  and  the  reason  given  was  that  the 
Methodist  Protestant  General  Conference  of  1870  had 
stricken  out  the  authorization  of  commissioners  to  meet 
commissioners  appointed  by  the  Methodist  General 
Conference  of  1871  to  “ receive  any  proposition  look- 
ing towards  union  that  might  be  made  ’’  but  not  to 
propose  any. 

Dr.  John  Scott,  of  the  Methodist  Church,  has  said : 

There  is  one  amusing  thing,  however,  which  cannot 
fail  to  be  noticed  in  connection  with  the  action  of  each 
of  the  parties  to  the  proposed  union,  and  that  is  the 
caution  taken  to  prevent  the  impression  that  it  was  the 
party  that  first  proposed  the  union.” 

Dr.  Edward  J.  Drinkhouse,  elected  editor  of  the 
Methodist  Protestant  at  this  General  Conference  of 
1874,  has  written  some  very  pertinent  remarks  re- 
garding the  situation  at  that  time.  He  says : “ It 
was  the  gloomiest  period  in  the  history  of  the 
Methodist  Protestant  Church,  and  was  felt  by  the 
representatives  at  Lynchburg.  Then  were  revealed 
the  devastating  effects  of  the  aborted  union  move- 
ment with  the  Church  South.  The  condition  of  the 
Book  Concern  and  periodical  was  critical  in  the  ex- 
treme. After  the  greenback  issues  of  the  Civil  War, 
and  the  inflation  of  artificial  values,  there  came  the 
necessary  reaction,  and  the  period  of  1872-1876  was 
one  of  depreciation  and  well-nigh  panic.  All  the 
Churches  shared  in  the  depression,  and,  as  is  the  case 
in  times  of  discouragement,  they  cast  about  for  helps : 


METHODIST  AND  PEOTESTANT  191 


and  it  inaugurated  among  the  Methodists  in  particular 
the  era  of  fraternity  and  ‘Union.’  It  developed  a 
marvellous  tenacity  and  fidelity  to  principles  at  the 
same  time,  and,  if  the  writer  were  disposed  to  claim 
special  providential  oversight,  it  is  apparent  that  noth- 
ing but  such  oversight  saved  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Church,  in  its  disunited  sections,  from  absorption,  and 
proclaimed  its  mission  among  the  Churches  not  yet  ac- 
complished. With  the  best  motives  ecclesiastical  self- 
ishness is  capable  of,  not  a few  of  the  prominent 
ministers  were  baited  to  change  their  Church  relations. 
The  futility  of  such  a struggle,  as  Churches,  was  pointed 
out,  and  the  fatuity  of  preachers,  whose  abilities  would 
command  ample  temporal  support,  still  adhering,  with 
the  love  of  personal  sacrifice,  to  a theory  of  Church 
government,  insidiously  urged.” 

Union,  however,  was  approaching. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Church 
which  met  in  Princeton,  Illinois,  May  19-31,  1875,  had 
the  matter  of  union  squarely  before  it. 

Several  propositions  for  union  for  the  Methodist 
Church  and  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  were 
made  by  members  of  the  General  Conference,  and 
these  propositions  were  referred  to  a committee  on 
Methodist  Union.  Letters  were  received  from  one  of 
the  commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church 
and  from  two  fraternal  messengers  from  the  General 
Conference  of  that  body,  and  another  fraternal  mes- 
senger was  present  “and  made  a winning  address, 
hoping  that  the  divided  stream  of  the  Church  would 
soon  be  united.” 

Bishop  Janes  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was 
introduced  and  delivered  an  hour’s  address  on  fraternity 


192 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


and  union,  distinctly  favoring  the  organic  union  of  all 
branches  of  Methodism  in  the  United  States,  and  the 
Reverend  Dr.  William  Hunter,  the  regular  fraternal 
delegate  from  the  same  Church,  spoke  in  the  same  vein. 
To  this  a response  was  made  by  the  Reverend  A.  H. 
Bassett  in  behalf  of  the  General  Conference,  in  which 
address  he  suggested  that  “ the  mission  of  the  Reform 
Church  was  not  yet  accomplished.”  Fraternal  mes- 
sengers were  appointed  to  the  ensuing  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  proof  of 
the  brotherly  regard  of  the  Methodist  Church. 

The  supreme  act  of  this  General  Conference  was  the 
adoption  of  the  report  of  “ the  Committee  on  Method- 
istic  Union,”  the  most  important  part  of  which  was  the 
following : 

“Inasmuch  as  the  cause  for  suspension  of  official 
relations  by  the  Conferences  of  the  North  now  repre- 
sented in  this  General  Conference  is  now  entirely  re- 
moved by  the  providence  of  God,  and  the  suspension 
having  from  the  first  been  declared  to  be  only  con- 
tingent upon  the  continuance  of  the  cause  complained 
of.  And  whereas,  furthermore,  the  General  Conference 
of  the  South,  assembled  at  Lynchburg,  Ya.,  May,  1874, 
did  in  accordance  with  mutual  and  reciprocal  advances 
for  reunion  elect  nine  commissioners,  to  meet  nine 
coordinate  commissioners  expected  to  be  appointed  by 
this  General  Conference  now  in  session,  to  deliberate 
together  and  devise  plans  for  reunion  alike  honorable 
and  desirable  to  each ; therefore  this  committee  unan- 
imously recommend  the  election  of  nine  persons  as 
commissioners  for  said  purpose.” 

The  slave  question  was  the  cause  of  the  division 
originally,  but  now  slavery  itself  was  dead,  and  the 


METHODIST  AND  PROTESTANT  193 


cause  of  the  division  having  been  eliminated,  there  was 
nothing  to  prevent  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church 
and  the  Methodist  Church  coming  together  as  an 
organic  unity. 

The  Methodist  General  Conference  in  the  report  of 
the  Committee  on  Union  took  another  important  action 
which  was  a declaration  against  “ the  policy  of  absorp- 
tion in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,”  and  among 
the  last  resolves  of  this  General  Conference  was  a 
respectful  declination  of  the  overtures  from  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  in  which  the  Conference  said: 
“We  deem  it  our  bounden  duty  to  adhere  to  our  dis- 
tinctive organization,”  etc. 

The  nine  commissioners  having  been  appointed  it 
was  decided  to  have  an  early  consultation  with  the 
nine  commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church, 
and  by  mutual  agreement  a call  was  issued  for  an 
initial  meeting  at  the  First  Church,  Pittsburgh,  Penn- 
sylvania, on  the  22d  of  October  in  the  same  year,  18Y5. 

On  that  date  and  in  that  place  the  commissioners  of 
both  Churches  met,  and  after  a day’s  deliberation  the 
subcommittee  reported  a Basis  of  Union.  According 
to  this  basis  the  title  “ Methodist  Church  ” was  to  be 
dropped  and  the  name  of  the  united  or  reunited  Church 
was  to  be  “ The  Methodist  Protestant  Church,”  and 
the  ratio  of  representation  in  each  class  was  to  be  one 
in  every  thousand  members.  Having  finished  this 
part  of  the  work  the  joint  commission  adopted  the 
folloAving : “ Resolved  that  a Convention  of  the  Method- 
ist Protestant  and  Methodist  Churches  be  held  in  Balti- 
more the  second  Friday  in  May,  1877,  to  consummate 
the  whole  work.” 

In  the  meantime  the  General  Conference  of  the 


194 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Methodist  Episcopal  Church  convened  in  the  city  of 
Baltimore,  in  May,  1876,  and  fraternal  delegates  from 
both  the  Methodist  and  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Churches  were  present  and  delivered  fraternal  addresses. 

The  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Protestant 
and  the  Methodist  Churches  quite  promptly  voted  that 
the  proposed  Conventions  be  called,  and  on  the  11th 
of  May,  1877,  the  General  Convention  of  the  Method- 
ist Protestant  Church  met  in  the  East  Baltimore 
Church,  on  Fayette  Street,  Baltimore,  and  the  General 
Convention  of  the  Methodist  Church  met  at  the  same 
time  in  the  West  Baltimore  Church  on  Green  Street  in 
the  same  city. 

Seventy-one  representatives  from  the  Methodist 
Protestant  Church  were  present,  and  seventy-eight 
from  the  Methodist  Church.  The  full  list  of  selected 
representatives  was  one  hundred  and  three  from  the 
Methodist  Protestant  Church,  and  one  hundred  and 
eleven  from  the  Methodist  Church,  so  there  were 
thirty-two  absentees  from  the  former  Church,  and 
thirty-three  from  the  latter. 

Each  body  appointed  a conference  committee,  and 
the  Joint  Committee  of  Conference  submitted  the  fol- 
lowing : 

Resolved  1.  That  the  Basis  of  Union  agreed  upon 
by  the  Joint  Commission  of  the  Methodist  Protes- 
tant and  Methodist  Churches,  at  Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  be 
adopted,  and  that  we  interpret  that  Basis  of  Union  on 
the  condition  of  receiving  members  into  the  Church  to 
be  substantially  the  same  as  is  now  in  the  New  Edition 
of  the  Methodist  Book  of  Discipline — the  third  item, 
relative  to  children,  having  been  inadvertently  omitted 
in  the  published  Basis  of  Union. 


METHODIST  AND  PROTESTANT  195 


Resolved  2.  That  the  matter  of  suffrage  and 
eligibility  to  office  be  left  to  the  Annual  Conferences 
respectively, — Provided^  That  each  Annual  Conference 
shall  be  entitled  to  representation  on  the  same  ratio,  in 
the  General  Conference ; And  'provided^  That  no  rule 
shall  be  passed  which  shall  infringe  the  right  of  suf- 
frage or  eligibility  to  office. 

“ Resolved  3.  That  this  Joint  Committee  of  Confer- 
ence recommend  to  the  General  Convention  of  the 
Methodist  Protestant  Church,  and  to  the  General  Con- 
vention of  the  Methodist  Church,  now  in  session,  the 
immediate  Organic  Union  of  the  Methodist  Protestant 
and  Methodist  Churches — upon  the  Basis  of  Union  set 
forth  in  this  report.” 

This  report  was  adopted  unanimously  by  the  Method- 
ist Convention  on  the  16  th  of  May,  and,  the  next  day, 
by  the  Methodist  Protestant  Convention  by  a yea  and 
nay  vote  of  sixty  yeas  to  five  nays. 

In  the  Methodist  Convention  on  the  same  day  the 
following  paper  was  agreed  to : 

“That  in  the  consummation  of  the  union  of  the 
Methodist  and  Methodist  Protestant  Churches,  the 
bodies,  which  are  parties  thereto,  take  with  them  all  of 
the  boards,  institutions,  and  property  belonging  to  the 
General  Conferences  represented  in  the  two  Conven- 
tions now  assembled,  or  in  the  Joint  Convention.  That 
this  Convention  appoint  a committee  of  three  persons  to 
inquire  into,  and  make  provision  for,  any  alteration  that 
may  be  deemed  necessary  or  important  to  make  con- 
formity and  uniformity  in  all  of  the  titles  of  property 
and  boards  to  the  new  conditions  and  relations  thus 
assumed.” 

A Joint  Committee  on  Formal  Union  had  arranged 


196 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


for  the  two  Conventions  to  come  together  in  the  Starr 
Methodist  Protestant  Church,  in  Baltimore,  and  each 
Convention  selected  its  own  marshal.  On  the  fifth 
day,  namely  May  16th,  each  Convention  started  from 
the  church  where  it  had  been  meeting.  As  one  of  the 
participants  tells  us : 

“ The  Methodist  Protestant  Convention,  about  4 : 30 
p.  M.  of  the  fifth  day,  marched  to  the  corner  of  Lom- 
bard and  Fremont  Streets,  about  half-way  to  the 
Methodist  Convention  at  Green  and  Lombard  Streets, 
who  marched  to  the  same  junction.  Then  two  by  two, 
under  the  direction  of  the  marshals,  they  joined,  one 
from  either  Convention,  and  so  proceeded  to  the  Starr 
Church,  a united  body.  The  spectacle  attracted  much 
attention  from  the  citizens  as  well  it  might.  The  two 
Conventions  had  been  noticed  in  all  the  secular  papers 
of  the  country,  even  the  large  New  York  dailies  giving 
up  space  to  them,  while  the  family  of  Christian  Advo- 
cates,  North  and  South,  not  wont  to  advertise  any- 
thing Methodist  Protestant,  sent  felicitations,  so  that 
the  Church  came  into  notice  as  never  before  in  its  his- 
tory, and  to  its  manifest  advantage.” 

It  was  indeed  a spectacular  and  impressive  event  as 
the  members  of  the  two  Conventions  symbolized  their 
oneness  by  marching  two  by  two  and  arm  in  arm 
through  the  streets  of  Baltimore  on  Wednesday  after- 
noon, May  16,  1877. 

Reaching  the  Starr  Church  the  procession  entered  in 
the  same  order,  and  the  official  minutes  state  that  “ In 
accordance  with  the  Plan  of  Union  agreed  to  by  the 
Conventions  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  and  Method- 
ist Churches,  at  Baltimore,  Md.,  May  15  and  16,  1877, 
the  representatives  of  the  two  Churches  assembled  in 


METHODIST  AND  PROTESTANT  197 


Joint  Convention  at  Starr  Methodist  Protestant  Church, 
Baltimore,  Md.,  May  16,  1877,  at  4:45  p.  m.,  for  the 
purpose  of  consummating  the  Union  of  the  Churches 
represented.” 

The  Rev.  L.  W.  Bates,  D.  D.,  President  of  the 
Methodist  Protestant  Convention,  called  the  Joint  Con- 
vention to  order,  and  then  the  Rev.  J.  J.  Smith,  D.  D., 
President  of  the  Methodist  Convention  addressed  the  as- 
sembly, expressing  his  joy  on  seeing  this  day,  and  say- 
ing : “We  may  have  diversities  of  opinion,  and  yet,  as  in 
the  natural  world,  with  diversity  there  may  still  be 
unity — unity  of  heart  and  unity  of  work.  This  day’s 
work  will  swell  the  great  wave  of  unification  that  rolls 
on  to  conquer  the  world.” 

Doctor  Bates  responded  and  said : 

“ Twenty-three  years  have  passed  since  the  Churches 
here  represented  have  been  represented  in  the  same 
body.  The  universal  Church  and  world  will  recognize 
our  action  as  the  accomplishment  of  a great,  noble,  and 
glorious  purpose.  We  have  done  what  it  is  exceedingly 
difficult  for  men,  or  any  form  of  organization,  to  do. 
But  it  was  not  difficult  for  us,  because  in  our  separa- 
tion there  was  less  crimination  and  bitterness  of  feeling 
than  ever  attended  a like  severance  of  relations.  Still 
retaining  the  old  respect,  and  confidence,  and  love 
towards  each  other,  we  found  it  easy  to  blend.  It  was 
also  easy  for  us,  because  we  represent  the  sentiment  of 
the  people  who  compose  our  Churches.  They  speak 
to-day.  We  are  the  echo  of  the  united  Church  we  rep- 
resent. ...  We  take  the  initiative  in  the  glorious 
work  of  unification  among  such  Churches  of  the  land. 
. . . I now  pronounce  this  the  General  Convention 
of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church.  I call  upon  you 


198 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


to  arise  and  sing,  ‘ Praise  God  from  whom  aU  blessings 
flow.’  ” 

One  who  was  there  says : “ The  scene  that  ensued 
beggars  description.  As  the  great  assembly  arose,  and 
the  triumphant  measures  of  the  old  doxology  rolled 
through  the  sanctuary,  every  eye  was  dim  with  tears, 
and  every  form  trembled  with  unutterable  emotion. 
‘ The  place  where  they  were  was  shaken,  and  they 
were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost.’  Business  was 
suspended,  and  speeches,  brief,  earnest,  joyful,  impress- 
ively eloquent,  filled  up  more  than  an  hour.” 

The  next  day  permanent  ofi&cers  were  elected  by 
ballot.  A day  of  thanksgiving  was  ordered  in  recogni- 
tion of  the  “ providential  guidance  which  has  resulted 
in  the  now  happily  consummated  Union,”  and  the  Gen- 
eral Convention  finally  adjourned  on  the  twenty-third 
day  of  May,  1877. 

Doctor  Drinkhouse  remarks  in  his  History,  “ It  was 
the  first  formal  reunion  of  dissevered  ecclesiasticisms 
since  the  Civil  War,  and  once  more  the  country  recog- 
nized a Continental  Methodism,  knowing  no  North,  no 
South,  no  East,  no  West,  sectionally.” 

The  union  had  been  consummated  but  it  was  a union 
between  those  who  always  had  been  essentially  the 
same.  They  were  really  the  same  people  with  the 
same  doctrines  and  the  same  views  as  to  Church  polity. 
The  divergence  was  on  the  question  of  slavery  but  that 
had  disappeared  with  the  destruction  of  slavery  itself. 
The  supposed  union  with  the  Wesleyan  Connection  had 
been  a practical  nullity  and  the  Wesleyan  Connection 
continued  on  its  way.  It  was  simply  a reunion  of 
Methodist  Protestantism,  one  section  of  which  had 
called  itself  the  Methodist  Church. 


XXI 


FEATEEXAL  ADVANCES  BETWEEN  THE 
METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHUECH  AND 
THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL 
CHUECH,  SOUTH 

HOUGH  well  intended,  perhaps  the  efforts  for 


union  were  premature,  and  after  a time  the 


hope  of  immediate  unification  ceased,  though 


the  desire  for  ultimate  union  still  was  cherished  in 
many  hearts. 

Union  having  been  frustrated,  at  least  for  the  time, 
the  thought  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  turned 
towards  the  development  of  fraternal  feeling  between 
it  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  for  it 
was  plain  that  there  must  be  fraternity  before  there 
could  possibly  be  union.  So  efforts  now  were  made  on 
the  line  of  fraternity. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  meeting  in  Brooklyn,  in  1872,  adopted  the 
following  on  the  matter  of  fraternity,  or  friendly  rela- 
tions with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South : 

“We  believe  that  very  generally  there  has  hitherto 
existed  among  our  people  a disposition  of  good  will  and 
Christian  fraternity  towards  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South.  This  disposition  and  purpose  we  still 
hold  and  maintain.  In  whatever  degree  of  success  in 
preaching  the  Gospel,  edifying  believers,  and  saving 
souls,  God  has  given  to  that  Church,  we  devoutly  re- 
joice ; and  we  will  continue  to  pray  for  the  prosperity 


199 


200 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


and  success  of  the  labors  of  our  brethren  of  that  Church, 
and  for  its  increase  in  all  spiritual  and  temporal  good ; 
and  in  all  our  labors,  in  proximity  to  the  local  churches 
and  societies  of  that  body,  we  desire  to  maintain  with 
them  relations  of  Christian  good-will.” 

No  expressions  could  be  more  brotherly  in  form  and 
none  could  more  fully  breathe  the  spirit  of  Christian 
fraternity,  but,  while  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
was  so  exceedingly  fraternal,  it  did  not  believe  that,  to 
be  fairly  fraternal,  it  should  abandon  its  work  and  its 
people  throughout  the  southern  part  of  the  United 
States.  Therefore,  in  its  report  on  fraternity  it  further 
said : 

“ Within  the  parts  of  the  country  in  which  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  has  nearly  all  its  mem- 
bership and  institutions,  to  wit : all  the  states  formerly 
known  as  slave  states,  except  Maryland  and  Delaware, 
over  three  hundred  thousand  of  our  members  reside, 
with  their  houses  of  worship,  institutions  of  learning, 
and  other  Church  arrangements. 

“ Our  Church  is  as  really  settled  in  that  region  as  in 
any  other  part  of  the  land ; and  every  consideration  of 
good  faith  to  our  own  people,  and  of  regard  to  the  in- 
tegrity of  our  Church,  and  especially  of  the  unmistak- 
able evidences  of  the  favor  of  God  towards  our  efforts 
there,  forbids  the  thought  of  relaxing  our  labors  in 
that  part  of  our  work.  We  must  therefore  continue  to 
occupy  that  part  of  the  country  in  perpetuity ; and  we 
have  need  to  strengthen  and  reenforce  our  work  in  it 
as  God  shall  give  us  the  means  and  the  opportunities. 
But  in  all  this  we  desire  to  avoid  all  unfriendly  rival- 
ries with  our  brethren  of  the  Church  South.  There  is 
abundant  room  for  both  us  and  them,  and  God  may 


FRATERNAL  ADVANCES 


201 


use  both  of  these  Churches  for  the  promotion  of  His 
cause  in  these  parts.” 

This  of  course  was  a practical  denial  that  the  Church 
South  was  entitled  to  exclusive  possession  of  the  South, 
and  an  exceedingly  plain  declaration  that  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  had  a right  to  be  in  the  South,  and 
that  it  could  not  conscientiously  withdraw  from  that 
section.  Nevertheless  it  wished  to  be  on  fraternal 
terms  with  the  Church  South,  and  therefore  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in 
1872,  followed  its  declaration  of  fraternity  by  adopting 
the  following ; 

“To  place  ourselves  in  the  truly  fraternal  relation 
towards  our  Southern  brethren  which  the  sentiments 
of  our  people  demand,  and  to  prepare  the  way  for  the 
opening  of  formal  fraternity  with  them,  be  it  hereby 
Resolmd,  That  this  General  Conference  will  ap- 
point a delegation,  consisting  of  two  ministers  and  one 
layman,  to  convey  our  fraternal  greetings  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  at  its  next  session.” 

So  earnest  was  this  Methodist  Episcopal  General 
Conference  in  this  expression  that  the  report  was  re- 
ceived and  adopted  with  great  enthusiasm,  by  a rising 
vote,  every  delegate,  excepting  two,  voting  for  it,  and 
all  the  bishops  requesting  the  privilege  of  standing 
with  the  Conference  in  the  vote. 

The  fraternal  delegates  appointed  by  the  Board  of 
Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  com- 
pliance with  the  order  of  the  General  Conference,  were 
the  Reverend  Albert  S.  Hunt,  D.  D.,  of  New  York,  the 
Reverend  Charles  H.  Fowler,  D.  D.,  of  Chicago,  and 
General  Clinton  B.  Fisk,  of  St.  Louis. 


202 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


These  delegates  attended  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  which  met  in 
the  city  of  Louisville,  in  the  month  of  May,  1874,  and 
they  were  received  with  marked  courtesy. 

On  the  eighth  day  of  the  month,  these  fraternal  mes- 
sengers were  escorted  to  the  platform  and  formally 
introduced  to  the  presiding  bishop.  Bishop  Doggett, 
who  introduced  them  to  the  other  bishops,  and  to  the 
Reverend  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce,  who  had  been  the  delegate 
of  the  Church  South  in  1848.  The  latter  introduction 
was  a delicate  touch  of  graciousness  which  must  have 
been  a good  deal  of  a solace  to  the  soul  of  Doctor 
Pierce  with  his  memories  of  ’48.  The  delegates  pre- 
sented their  credentials  which  recited  the  action  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1872,  their  appointment,  and 
their  authorization  ‘‘  to  bear  the  ‘ fraternal  greeting  ’ of 
the  said  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South.” 

The  credentials  were  signed  by  an  episcopal  commit- 
tee of  four  bishops,  namely,  by  Bishop  Edmund  S. 
Janes,  who  was  elected  bishop  in  1844,  though  he  was 
not  a member  of  that  General  Conference,  and  by  Bish- 
ops Levi  Scott,  Matthew  Simpson,  and  Edward  R.  Ames, 
who  were  members  of  the  General  Conference  of  ’44. 

The  credentials  were  dated  “New  York,  April  20, 
1874.” 

The  Chair  then  introduced  the  fraternal  delegates  to 
the  General  Conference.  Each  delegate  addressed  the 
Conference,  as  was  said,  “ with  eloquence  and  much 
ability,  and  acceptably  alike  to  the  General  Conference 
and  to  those  who  sent  them  upon  this  errand  of  Chris- 
tian love,” 


FEATERNAL  ADVANCES 


203 


In  the  course  of  his  remarks,  one  of  the  fraternal 
delegates  said : 

“ Leaving  organic  union  as  a question  of  the  future, 
let  us  make  the  union  of  our  hearts  the  question  of  to- 
day ; and  make  one  holy  covenant  from  this  hour,  one 
in  sympathy  and  one  in  purpose,  we  will  toil  on,  shoul- 
der to  shoulder,  waiting  patiently  for  that  near  to-mor- 
row, when  there  shall  be  but  one  Methodism  for  man- 
kind.” 

This  was  the  spirit  of  the  message  borne  by  these 
representatives  from  the  old  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
to  the  younger  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

The  subject  was  referred  to  a committee  but,  before 
it  was  ready  to  report,  the  fraternal  messengers  took 
their  leave.  This  was  on  the  13th  of  May,  but  Southern 
courtesy  would  not  permit  them  to  depart  without  some 
formal  expression.  So  in  lieu  of  the  report  at  that  time 
Judge  Jackson,  of  Georgia,  and  Governor  Trusten  Polk, 
of  Missouri,  offered  the  following  resolutions  : 

“ Resolved^  That  the  message  of  love  and  brotherly 
kindness  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  been 
cordially  received,  and  has  been  referred  to  a Commit- 
tee of  Nine,  who  will,  in  due  time,  formally  and  fra- 
ternally reply  thereto. 

‘‘Resolved,  That  we  regret  that  the  distinguished 
messengers  sent  by  the  Church  cannot  remain  to  await 
the  presentation  and  reception  of  that  report,  but,  un- 
derstanding that  they  leave  us  to-day,  we  are  unwilling 
that  they  should  return  home  without  carrying  with 
them  the  knowledge  of  our  appreciation  of  their  cour- 
teous and  fraternal  bearing  among  us,  and  our  wishes 
and  prayers  for  their  future  happiness  and  prosperity.” 

A number  of  speeches  in  harmony  with  the  resolu- 


204 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


tions  were  made,  among  them  one  by  Dr.  Edmund  W. 
Sehon,  who  in  1844  belonged  to  the  Ohio  Conference 
and  from  it  was  a delegate  to  the  General  Conference 
of  that  year.  In  that  Conference  he  joined  with  the 
Southern  members  in  signing  the  historic  “ Protest,” 
and,  later,  cast  in  his  lot  with  the  Church  South. 
Thirty  years  had  passed  since  the  confusion  and  excite- 
ment of  1844,  and  he  still  had  an  affection  for  the  old 
Church,  as  shown  in  his  eloquent  speech  at  this  time,  in 
which  he  said : 

“ The  appearance  of  this  commission  from  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  has  brought  an  hour  which  my 
soul  has  long  desired  to  see.  I pray  the  blessing  of  God 
upon  them  as  a member  of  the  old  fraternity ; and,  as 
a member  of  the  new,  I rejoice  at  any  omen  of  peace 
and  good  feeling.  It  is  the  demand  of  the  age,  of  the 
period  in  which  we  live,  and  of  our  glorious  religion, 
that  we  extend  to  them  a fraternal  hand.  I say  noth- 
ing of  differences.  Let  the  future  take  care  of  itself. 
Let  us  now  extend  to  them  our  hands  in  Christian  fra- 
ternity.” 

After  the  insertion  of  the  word  Christian  before  cour- 
teous, the  resolutions  of  Judge  Jackson  and  Governor 
Polk  were  adopted,  and  the  fraternal  delegates  bade  the 
Conference  farewell. 

The  report  of  the  Committee  of  Nine  was  not  pre- 
sented until  the  23d  of  May.  The  report  was  quite 
lengthy.  In  opening  it  recited  the  action  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  General  Conference  of  18Y2  and  the  des- 
ignation of  three  representatives,  who  had  appeared  and 
delivered  their  message.  Then  the  report  continues : 

“ It  is  with  pleasure  that  we  bear  testimony  to  the 
distinguished  ability,  and  the  eloquent  and  courteous 


FRATERNAL  ADVANCES 


205 


manner,  in  which  these  Christian  brethren  discharged 
their  trust.  Their  utterances  warmed  our  hearts.  Their 
touching  allusions  to  the  common  heritage  of  Methodist 
history,  to  our  oneness  of  doctrines,  polity,  and  usage, 
and  their  calling  to  mind  the  great  work  in  which  we 
are  both  engaged  for  the  extension  of  the  kingdom  of 
their  Lord  and  ours,  stirred  within  us  precious  mem- 
ories. 

“We  are  called  upon,  by  the  terms  of  the  action  of 
their  General  Conference,  to  consider  measures  neces- 
sary ‘ to  prepare  the  way  for  the  opening  of  formal  fra- 
ternity.’ Every  transaction  and  utterance  of  our  past 
history  pledges  us  to  regard  favorably,  and  to  meet 
promptly,  this  initial  response  to  our  long  expressed  de- 
sire.” 

This  was  proceeding  in  the  most  harmonious  manner, 
but  just  here  was  interjected  an  allusion  to  Dr.  Lovick 
Pierce  and  the  episode  of  1868,  alluding  to  the  Doctor 
as  “ our  rejected  delegate,”  though  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1868  did  not  reject  him  personally  but  extended 
courtesies  to  him,  inviting  him  to  attend  the  sessions,  to 
sit  within  the  bar,  and  to  present  propositions  to  dimin- 
ish or  remove  the  difficulties  between  the  two  bodies. 
Then  the  report  referred  to  the  incidents  of  1869,  when 
the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  made 
advances  to  their  bishops;  of  1870,  when  a deputation 
visited  the  General  Conference  of  the  Church  South ; 
and  now,  in  1874,  when  a commission  from  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  General  Conference  brings  “fraternal 
greetings,”  and  the  report  says : 

“We  hail  with  pleasure,  and  embrace  the  opportunity 
at  length  afforded  us  of  entering  into  negotiations  to 
secure  tranquillity  and  fellowship  to  our  alienated  com- 


206 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


munions  upon  a permanent  basis,  and  alike  honorable 
to  all.” 

This  seemed  to  be  a decided  gain  but  the  report  im- 
mediately declares  against  the  union  of  the  two  Churches. 
It  says ; 

“We  deem  it  proper,  for  the  attainment  of  the  ob- 
ject sought,  to  guard  against  all  misapprehension.  Or- 
ganic union  is  not  involved  in  fraternity.  In  our  view 
of  the  subject,  the  reasons  for  the  separate  existence  of 
these  two  branches  of  Methodism  are  such  as  to  make 
corporate  union  undesirable  and  impracticable.  The 
events  and  experiences  of  the  last  thirty  years  have 
confirmed  us  in  the  conviction  that  such  a consumma- 
tion is  demanded  by  neither  reason  nor  charity.  We 
believe  that  each  Church  can  do  its  work  and  fulfill  its 
mission  most  effectively  by  maintaining  an  independent 
organization.  The  causes  which  led  to  the  division  in 
1844,  upon  a Plan  of  Separation  mutually  agreed  upon, 
have  not  disappeared.  Some  of  them  exist  in  their 
original  form  and  force,  and  others  have  been  modified 
but  not  diminished.” 

This  shows  that  the  Church  South  General  Confer- 
ence of  1874  still  stood  for  the  old  Southern  interpreta- 
tion of  the  acts  of  1844,  and  was  as  determined  as  ever 
to  maintain  its  “ independent  organization.”  In  brief 
it  was  opposed  to  any  “ organic  union  ” with  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  and  would  not  respond  affirm- 
atively to  the  appeal  of  one  of  the  fraternal  delegates 
to  “ make  one  holy  covenant  that  from  this  hour,  one 
in  sympathy  and  one  in  purpose,  we  will  toil  on,  shoul- 
der to  shoulder,  waiting  patiently  for  that  near  to-mor- 
row, when  there  shall  be  but  one  Methodism  for  man- 
kind.” 


FRATERNAL  ADVANCES 


207 


For  their  opposition  to  union  they  gave  several  rea- 
sons. For  example  “ the  size  of  the  connection,  and  the 
extent  of  territory  covered  by  it  ” ; the  General  Confer- 
ence “ was  becoming  too  unwieldy  for  the  ends  orig- 
inally designed ; ” for  the  General  Conference  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  “ claimed  for  it  preroga- 
tives which  seemed  to  us  both  dangerous  and  unconsti- 
tutional. In  their  view  the  General  Conference  is  su- 
preme. Although  restricted  in  the  exercise  of  its 
power  by  a constitution,  it  is  the  judge  of  the  restric- 
tions, and  is  thus  practically  unlimited.  In  our  view, 
the  General  Conference  is  a body  of  limited  powers. 
It  cannot  absorb  the  functions  of  other  and  coordinate 
branches  of  the  Church  government,  and  there  are 
methods  by  which  all  constitutional  questions  may  be 
brought  to  a satisfactory  issue.”  With  these  differences 
of  view,  “ Were  the  two  Methodisms  organically  united, 
it  would  lead  to  serious  collision,  and  expose  the  minor- 
ity to  harassing  legislation,  if  not  to  oppression.” 

Then  came  a reference  to  slavery  and  the  report 
said  : “ The  existence  of  slavery  in  the  Southern  States 
furnished  an  occasion,  with  its  connected  questions, 
fruitful  of  disturbance  ; and  to  this  the  division  has  been 
mainly  attributed.  The  position  of  Southern  Method- 
ism on  that  subject  was  Scriptural.  Our  opinions  have 
undergone  no  change.”  Thus  after  the  lapse  of  all 
these  years  since  emancipation  they  assert  that  their 
old  views  as  to  slavery  were  unchanged  and  still  affirm 
that  these  views  were  Scriptural.  And  this  in  1874, 
nearly  ten  years  after  the  war  ! 

The  report  also  referred  to  difference  of  method  in 
dealing  with  the  colored  people,  saying:  “We  have 
set  off  our  colored  members  into  an  independent  eccle- 


208 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


siastical  body  with  our  own  creed  and  polity.  . . . 

This  method  has  met  with  encouraging  success.  We  be- 
lieve it  is  the  best  for  both  races.  . . . Our  North- 
ern brethren  have  pursued  a different  plan.  . . . 

They  have  mixed  conferences,  mixed  congregations,  and 
mixed  schools.  We  do  not  ask  them  to  adopt  our  plan. 
We  could  not  adopt  theirs.”  Of  course  long  years  ago 
that  mixed  condition  was  regarded  as  a necessity  grow- 
ing out  of  pioneer  work  and  unsettled  conditions,  and 
it  is  plain  that  they  have  been  greatly  modified.  Only 
a few  years  before  the  Church  South  had  its  own  mixed 
congregations.  Then  the  report  goes  on  to  say  : 

“ But,  while  we  are  clear  and  final  in  our  declarations 
against  the  union  of  the  two  Methodisms,  we  welcome 
measures  looking  to  the  removal  of  obstacles  in  the  way 
of  amity  and  peace.” 

Following  this  is  a disquisition  on  the  so-called  ‘‘  Plan 
of  Separation,”  after  which  came  the  following : 

“ Eesolved^  That  this  General  Conference  has  re- 
ceived with  pleasure  the  fraternal  greetings  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  conveyed  to  us  by  their 
delegates,  and  that  our  College  of  Bishops  be,  and  are 
hereby,  authorized  to  appoint  a delegation,  consisting 
of  two  ministers  and  one  layman,  to  bear  our  Christian 
salutations  to  their  next  ensuing  General  Conference.” 

Thus  was  the  interchange  of  salutations  through  fra- 
ternal delegates  from  the  two  Churches  inaugurated 
and  established,  for  it  has  continued  until  the  present 
time  and,  doubtless,  will  continue  in  the  future. 

Then  the  report  closed  with  the  following : 

“ BesoVued,  That,  in  order  to  remove  all  obstacles  to 
formal  fraternity  between  the  two  Churches,  our  Col- 
lege of  Bishops  is  authorized  to  appoint  a commission. 


FRATERNAL  ADVANCES 


209 


consisting  of  three  ministers  and  two  laymen,  to  meet 
a similar  commission  authorized  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  to  adjust 
all  existing  difficulties.” 

This  report  was  finally  adopted  by  a vote  of  109 
to  61,  but  there  had  been  a long  and  animated  discus- 
sion, occupying  the  morning  and  the  afternoon  session, 
and  the  report  was  recommitted  and  after  it  had  been 
slightly  modified  and  rearranged,  it  was  adopted  by 
the  above  mentioned  vote. 

The  large  adverse  vote  calls  for  some  explanation. 
The  fact  is  that  a number  of  the  members  wished  the 
report  simply  to  respond  to  the  fraternal  greetings  and 
to  express  fraternal  feelings  without  reference  to  former 
differences  and  unpleasantnesses. 

This  event  of  1874  elicited  from  the  Church  South 
General  Conference  very  general  and  very  emphatic 
opposition  to  union  between  the  Church  South  and  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  it  should  not  be 
deemed  a failure  for  it  brought  out  a feeling  of  fra- 
ternity from  both  Churches,  and  a willingness  to  at- 
tempt a settlement  of  certain  difficulties  and,  particu- 
larly, those  that  related  to  property  in  dispute. 

Since  about  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  as  the  evidence  shows,  had  made  re- 
peated advances  of  a fraternal  character,  involving  not 
only  an  expressed  desire  for  fraternal  relations,  but  also 
an  avowed  effort  towards  union  with  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South. 

It  was  supposed  that  the  cause,  or  occasion  of  nearly 
all  the  differences,  namely,  human  slavery,  having  dis- 
appeared, that  there  could  be  no  insuperable  obstacle 
in  the  way  of  an  ecclesiastical  unity. 


210 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


It  was  found,  however,  that  the  Church  South  did 
not  desire  a union  and  was  positively  opposed  to  a 
fusion  with  the  old  Church.  It  was  plain,  therefore, 
that  there  was  no  immediate  hope  for  organic  unity. 
Nevertheless,  though  proffers  of  union  were  unsuccess- 
ful, formal  fraternity  was  a possibility. 

The  act  of  the  18Y2  General  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  directing  that  fraternal  dele- 
gates should  convey  its  formal  and  most  sincere  greet- 
ings to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  which  was  to  meet  in  1874,  opened 
the  way  for  the  Church  South  to  reciprocate  in  response 
by  expressions  of  fraternal  feeling,  which  it  did,  so 
that,  by  these  public  declarations,  the  relations  of  the 
two  Churches  were  placed  on  a mutual  and  well  de- 
fined basis  of  fraternity. 

Then  when  the  General  Conference  of  the  Church 
South  responded  by  sending  its  fraternal  delegates  to 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  this  mutual  interchange  of  delegations 
and  greetings  was  continued  quadrennium  after  quad- 
rennium,  there  was  established  a recognized,  as  well  as 
an  actual,  kinship  between  the  two  bodies. 

Negotiations  for  union  were  held  in  abeyance  for  the 
time  being  but  efforts  continued  in  the  promotion  of 
brotherliness.  The  fraternal  delegation  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  1876,  con- 
sisted of  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce,  Dr.  James  A.  Duncan,  and 
Dr.  L.  C.  Garland. 

It  was  a fitting  compliment  to  Doctor  Pierce,  who 
had  been  a prominent  member  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1844,  one  of  the  organizers  of  the  Methodist 


FKATERNAL  ADVANCES 


211 


Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  the  representative  of  that 
Church  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  General  Conference 
of  1868,  that  he  should  be  designated  by  his  Church  to 
be  its  fraternal  delegate  in  1876  and  the  leader  of  the 
delegation.  This  time  he  could  be  sure  of  the  com- 
pletest  sort  of  a reception  his  heart  could  desire.  Now 
there  would  be  no  question  as  to  his  most  cordial  recog- 
nition as  a delegate  or  as  to  the  propriety  of  fraternity 
between  the  two  Churches. 

Unfortunately  there  was  in  store  a disappointment 
for  him,  for  his  Church,  and  for  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church.  Sad  to  say  he  was  not  able  to  reach  the 
Conference.  He  was  in  the  seventy-second  year  of  his 
ministry  and  the  ninety-second  of  his  age  but,  vener- 
able though  he  was,  he  started  for  the  Conference,  but 
ill-health  prevented  his  reaching  the  Conference  seat. 
However  he  sent  to  the  body  a letter  which  was  perti- 
nent, pathetic,  and  full  of  his  characteristic  frankness. 

On  Friday  morning,  the  twelfth  day  of  May,  1876, 
and  at  eleven  o’clock,  the  order  of  the  day  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  was  the  reception  of  the  fraternal 
delegates  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 
Bishop  Peck  was  presiding,  but  he  suggested  that 
Bishop  Janes  take  the  chair.  This  was  appropriate 
not  only  because  Bishop  Janes  was  the  senior  bishop 
but  also  because  he  had  been  elected  in  1844  before  the 
Southern  delegates  withdrew  to  form  the  Church  South. 
After  taking  the  chair,  Bishop  Janes  presented  to  the 
Conference  the  Reverend  James  A.  Duncan,  D.  D., 
president  of  the  Randolph  Macon  College,  and  Landon 
C.  Garland,  LL.  D.,  Chancellor  of  the  Vanderbilt  Uni- 
versity, as  the  fraternal  delegates  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South. 


212 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Then  the  secretary  of  the  Conference  read  the  cre- 
dentials, the  action  of  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Church  South  being  signed  by  Thomas  O.  Summers, 
the  secretary  of  that  General  Conference,  and  the 
designation  of  the  delegates  being  signed  by  H.  N. 
M’Tyeire,  secretary  of  the  College  of  Bishops. 

Following  this  the  secretary  read  the  letter  from 
Dr.  Lovick  Pierce,  the  “Senior  Fraternal  Messen- 
ger.” In  this  letter,  or  address.  Doctor  Pierce  said : 
“ I furnish  an  instance  . . . such  as  I think  it  likely 

was  never  known  before  in  one  sent  abroad  on  any 
diplomatic  ministry ; a man  in  the  ninety-second  year 
of  his  age,  and  in  the  seventy -second  of  his  effective 
ministry  P 

In  an  allusion  to  the  incident  of  1848,  he  said : “ I 
had  been  sent  as  a lone  fraternal  messenger  from  our 
first  General  Conference,  after  the  division,  in  1846,  to 
arrange  for  and  settle  on  a basis  of  intercommunication, 
so  that  two  General  Conferences  instead  of  07ie  should 
be  all  the  difference  between  us.  . . . It  was  fol- 

lowed by  a wintry  night  of  twenty-one  years  before 
any  morning  star,  foretelling  the  approach  of  a better 
day,  ever  arose  above  the  gloomy  horizon  that  encom- 
passed our  beloved  Methodism.  This  star  of  hope  ap- 
peared in  the  voluntary  visit  of  Bishop  Simpson  and 
Doctor  (now  Bishop)  Harris  to  the  meeting  of  our  bish- 
ops in  St.  Louis,  May,  1869.” 

Here  he  recounted  the  successive  fraternal  approaches 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  down  to  the  frater- 
nal delegation  of  1874,  and  continued  by  saying : “We 
protest  against  any  longer  use  of  the  popular  phrase 
‘ two  Methodisms,’  as  between  us.  There  is  but  one 
Episcopal  Methodism  in  the  United  States  of  America, 


FRATERNAL  ADVANCES 


213 


and  you  and  we  together  make  up  this  one  Methodism. 
. . . For  both  divisions  to  call  themselves  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  would  have  been  ridiculous. 
And  since  to  you  belonged  the  right  to  keep  the  old 
title  without  any  affix,  if  you  so  determined,  we  made 
ourselves  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  The 
affix  is  derived  solely  from  our  Southern  locality.  . . . 

In  ninety-two  years  of  our  Church  existence  we  have 
increased  from  a mere  beginning  to  a large  fraction 
over  two  millions  of  Episcopal  Methodists.  Then  add 
to  these  all  other  types  of  Methodists,  though  still 
Methodists,  and  we  closely  approximate  three  millions. 
And  then,  again,  when  we  count  in,  according  to  the 
laws  of  mortality,  all  that  have  died,  the  Methodists, 
in  these  ninety-two  years,  we  may  well  say.  Behold  and 
see  what  God  has  done  by  us  as  well  as  for  us ! Our 
record  is  in  heaven  great  as  well  as  in  the  earth.” 

In  closing  he  said : ‘‘  Let  us,  as  two  companies  of 
brothers  intrusted  with  a most  precious  patrimonial  es- 
tate . . . see  which  of  us  can  so  use  our  portion  of 

this  Methodist  capital  as  to  make  its  percentage  of  in- 
come the  test  of  comparative  fidelity,  industry,  and  de- 
votion to  its  polity  and  its  principles  of  operation,  as 
its  founders  and  its  fathers  turned  it  over  to  us.  Let  us 
do  this  as  brethren  of  one  heart  and  one  mind,  of  one 
great  aim  and  end,  and  the  future  will  prove  that  our 
division  into  two  General  Conference  jurisdictions  was 
a benediction  instead  of  a deprivation.” 

This  was  a remarkable  communication  from  this  ven- 
erable minister  whose  life  covered  the  entire  history  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  whose  active  life 
for  nearly  three-quarters  of  a century  had  been  a con- 
siderable part  of  that  history  in  its  making.  In  it  was 


214 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


a brotherly  spirit  but  nowhere  is  there  a wisn  for,  or  a 
suggestion  towards  the  union  of  the  two  bodies,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  there  is  a persistent  suggestion  for  the 
continuance  of  the  two  separate  Churches,  and  the  dec- 
laration that  the  division  was  a benediction. 

The  reading  of  Doctor  Pierce’s  letter  was  followed  by 
the  fraternal  address  of  the  Reverend  James  A.  Duncan, 
D.  D.  The  address  was  most  gracious  and  eloquent. 
Referring  to  its  quality.  Dr.  James  M.  Buckley  has 
said : “ Never  in  the  history  of  American  Methodism  was 
an  impression  more  delightful  and  profound  made  by 
a single  paragraph  than  by  his  exordium,  which  was  de- 
livered in  a manner  worthy  of  the  traditions  of  Cicero.” 

Doctor  Duncan  thus  began  : 

“ Mr.  President  and  Brethren : As  I stand  in  your 
presence  to-day,  a solemn  joy  in  my  heart  takes  prece- 
dence of  all  other  emotions.  The  responsibility  of  my 
mission  and  of  this  hour  is  solemn,  but  its  hope  is  an 
inspiration  of  joy.  Around  me  I behold  the  venerable 
and  distinguished  representatives  of  a great  Church ; 
beyond  them  are  millions  of  Methodists  in  America  and 
Europe,  who  feel  deeply  concerned  in  the  issues  of  this 
hour ; beyond  them,  in  still  more  distant  circles,  stand 
a great  cloud  of  witnesses,  composed  of  all  who  care 
for  the  peace,  the  unity,  and  the  prosperity  of  the  king- 
dom of  our  Lord  Jesus  ; and,  sir,  above  us  is  the  ‘gen- 
eral assembly  and  Church  of  the  first  born,  who  are 
written  in  heaven,’  and  among  them,  high  seated  in 
their  own  radiant  places,  are  our  sainted  fathers ; and 
over  all,  upon  that  eternal  throne  before  which  we  all 
reverently  worship,  reigns  ‘ the  God  and  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  of  whom  the  whole  family  in.  heaven 
and  earth  is  named.’  In  such  solemn  presence,  where 


FRATERNAL  ADVANCES 


215 


all  dissensions  seem  profanities,  where  all  temporal  and 
sectional  distinctions  disappear,  and  there  is  neither  Jew 
nor  Greek,  neither  bond  nor  free,  neither  male  nor  fe- 
male, but  all  are  one  in  Christ  Jesus,  through  whom  all 
have  access  by  one  Spirit  unto  the  Father,  and  ‘ are  no 
more  strangers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow-citizens  with 
the  saints,  and  of  the  household  of  God  ’ as  a humble 
citizen  of  that  kingdom  and  member  of  that  household, 
in  the  name  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
and  by  her  authority  as  a fraternal  messenger,  with 
brotherly  kindness  in  my  heart,  and  words  of  peace 
upon  my  lips,  I salute  you  this  day  as  brethren  of  Christ 
Jesus,  our  Lord.” 

Referring  to  fraternity  he  said : ‘‘  Mr.  President,  you 
will  agree  with  me  that  a sound,  healthful  fraternity 
between  Christian  Churches  ought  to  rest  on  no  un- 
certain ground,  but  should  give  an  intelligent  and  ex- 
plicit account  of  itself.  It  has  been  well  said,  ‘The 
amity  that  wisdom  knits  not,  folly  may  easily  untie.’ 
. . . But  what  is  fraternity?  Is  it  only  a quad- 
rennial ceremony,  a sort  of  ecclesiastical  court  formality, 
a specious  parade  of  public  addresses?  Is  it  a mere 
form  ? Sir,  I humbly  conceive  that  Christian  fraternity 
is  something  more  than  such  a solemn  mockery — some- 
thing deeper,  more  vital,  and  more  sacred.  It  is  a 
great  Christian  movement,  giving  concurrent  expres- 
sion to  the  great  brotherly  kindness  of  more  than  a 
million  hearts.  It  is  a sublime  Christian  alliance,  in 
which  charity  becomes  supreme  over  all  disputations, 
and  reaffirms  its  meaning,  its  power,  and  its  conse- 
quences. . . . How  to  blend  all  sects  into  one 
denomination,  and  obliterate  all  formal  distinction  in 
Church  government,  will,  perhaps,  continue  to  be  an 


216 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


unsolved  problem  until  the  millennium.  . . . The 

practical  value  of  fraternal  relations  will  entirely  de- 
pend upon  the  character  of  its  principles  and  the  respect 
which  they  command.  . . . We  do  not  establish 

fraternity  between  these  two  Churches  for  any  secular 
or  worldly  end.  . . . We  do  not  establish  fraternity 
merely  as  a judicious  measure  for  ending  unhappy  con- 
troversies. But  we  hope  it  will  end  them.  . . . 
We  do  not  establish  fraternity  merely  as  a policy 
measure.  . . . We  do  not  establish  fraternity  as  a 

measure  of  sectarian  ambition  as  Methodists.  . . . 

Christian  fraternity  is  the  reciprocal  recognition  of 
Christ  in  each  other.  ...  If  fraternity  is  any- 
thing, it  is  at  least  an  end  of  strife — it  is  peace ; it  is  a 
delightful  silence  after  a long  battle;  it  is  the  calm 
after  the  noise  of  the  waters  and  the  tumult  of  the  ele- 
ments when  the  Master  has  said,  ‘ Peace,  be  still.’  ” 

Dr.  L.  C.  Garland  delivered  the  third  address.  It 
was  shorter  than  the  others  but  exceedingly  forceful  and 
straightforward.  Being  a layman  he  voiced  the  senti- 
ments of  the  laity  of  his  Church.  He  said,  in  part : 

“ The  regret  that  an  occasion  should  ever  have  arisen 
for  the  division  of  the  Methodist  Church  was  at  that 
time,  and  still  is,  profound  and  universal.  This  regret, 
however,  did  not  extend  beyond  the  occasion,  because 
the  occasion,  as  it  presented  itself  to  our  apprehension, 
was  of  such  a nature  as  to  render  division  not  only 
necessary,  but  desirable.  . . . That  difficulties  in 

the  way  of  cordial  fraternity  have  existed,  and  still  do 
exist,  cannot  be  denied.  . . . We  of  the  South  are 

anxious  that  they  should  be  removed.  . . . What 

would  our  illustrious  founder,  whose  last  letter  to  Mr. 
Asbury  contained  a charge  to  maintain  the  unity  of 


FRATERNAL  ADVANCES 


217 


Methodism  throughout  the  world,  think  of  us,  were  he 
alive,  if  we  do  not  compose  our  strifes,  and  dwell 
together  in  the  bonds  of  Christian  sympathy  and  love  ? 

“ And  as  patriots,  how  vast  is  the  responsibility  rest- 
ing upon  us  to  restore,  as  far  as  power  lies  in  us,  a 
kind  political  feeling  between  the  two  sections  of  the 
country,  so  lately  arrayed  against  each  other  in  the 
struggles  of  an  internecine  war!  . . . And  what 

influence  can  we  exert  in  that  direction  if  we  fail  to 
restore  friendly  relations  between  ourselves?  If  the 
two  Churches  could  bring  about  the  entente  cordiale^  it 
would  accomplish  more  towards  the  restoration  of  good 
feeling  between  the  sections.  North  and  South,  than  a 
score  of  Centennial  Expositions. 

“Politics  appear  to  me  to  be  a centrifugal  force, 
tending  continually  to  engender  sectional  strife,  and  to 
the  rending  asunder  the  bonds  of  civil  society;  and 
where  shall  we  find  a force  to  antagonize  it,  a centrip- 
etal force  to  draw  together  and  cement  in  one  the 
disunited  parts,  if  not  in  the  grand  unity  of  a common 
Christian  faith  ? We  do,  therefore,  sincerely  desire  the 
restoration  of  good  feeling  between  the  two  Churches 
upon  a basis  derogatory  to  the  honor  of  neither.” 

These  were  noble  sentiments  and  nobly  expressed 
but  there  was  no  proffer  of  organic  unity  and  no  sug- 
gestion of  the  union  of  the  two  Churches.  However, 
they  made  for  fraternity  and  that  was  a great  gain 
and  the  fraternal  sentiments  were  most  cordially  recip- 
rocated by  this  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church. 

After  the  conclusion  of  the  address  of  Doctor  Gar- 
land, Dr.  D.  A.  Whedon  offered  the  following  resolu- 
tion which  was  adopted  by  a rising  vote : 


218 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


“ Resolved^  That  we  gladly  welcome  among  us  the 
distinguished  representatives  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  the  Reverend  James  A.  Duncan,  D.  D., 
and  Landon  C.  Garland,  LL.  D.,  greatly  regretting  at 
the  same  time  the  inability  to  be  present  with  us  of  their 
associate,  the  venerable  Reverend  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce, 
whom,  for  his  eminent  character  and  services,  it  would 
have  especially  delighted  us  to  receive,  and  whose  letter 
has  given  such  satisfaction  to  the  Conference ; and  we 
heartily  recognize  their  coming  as  a harbinger  of  better 
relations  henceforth  between  the  two  chief  branches 
of  our  American  Methodism.  We  have  listened  with 
great  pleasure  to  their  words  of  love  and  brotherhood 
in  response  to  the  fraternal  greetings  borne  to  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  by  direction  of  our  General  Conference  at  its 
last  session,  and,  fully  reciprocating  the  kindly  senti- 
ments they  have  expressed,  will  give  their  communica- 
tion early  and  most  considerate  attention.” 

At  last  fraternity  was  a declared  fact  and  a working 
force.  Fraternal  feeling  was  manifest  but  the  Church 
South  had  not,  through  its  General  Conference  or  by 
its  fraternal  delegates,  or  in  any  other  way  expressed 
the  faintest  wish  for  a union  of  the  two  Churches,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  had  formally  and  strongly  pronounced 
against  organic  unity. 

Still,  if  fraternity  was  secured,  that  was  a great  gain, 
for  then  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  could  work  in 
the  South  without  exciting  bitter  feelings  and  the  two 
Churches  might  labor  side  by  side  in  fraternal  har- 
mony. 


XXII 


THE  CAPE  MAY  COMMISSION 

The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  held  in  1874,  not 
only  resolved  to  send  “ a delegation  consisting 
of  two  ministers  and  one  layman,  to  bear  our  Christian 
salutations  to  their  [the  Methodist  Episcopal]  next  ensu- 
ing General  Conference,”  but  on  the  same  day  [the  23d 
of  May],  and  in  the  same  report,  the  Church  South 
General  Conference  adopted  the  following  : 

“ Resolved^  That  in  order  to  remove  all  obstacles  to 
formal  fraternity  between  the  two  Churches,  our  Col- 
lege of  Bishops  is  authorized  to  appoint  a commission, 
consisting  of  three  ministers  and  two  laymen,  to  meet  a 
similar  commission  authorized  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  to  adjust 
all  existing  difficulties.” 

Three  days  after  this  action  was  taken,  namely,  on 
the  26th  of  May,  the  last  day  of  the  session,  the  same 
General  Conference  of  the  Church  South,  for  some 
reason,  as  though  explanation  were  needed,  took  addi- 
tional action  and  passed  the  following  : 

“ Whereas^  the  discussions  and  votes  of  this  Confer- 
ence on  the  subject  of  fraternal  relations  with  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  its  cognate  subjects, 
present  the  appearance  of  essential  differences  which  do 
not  exist ; therefore, 

“ 1.  Resolved,  That  upon  the  subject  of  fraternal  re- 

219 


220 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


lations  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  upon  a 
proper  basis,  this  Conference  is  a unit. 

“ 2.  Resolved^  That  we  are  also  a unit  upon  the 
propriety  of  appointing  a commission  empowered  to 
meet  a like  commission  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  to  settle  all  questions  of  difficulty  between  us,  and 
that  such  settlement  is  essential  to  complete  fraternity. 

‘‘  3.  Resolved^  That  the  only  points  of  difference  be- 
tween us  on  this  whole  subject  are  the  best  methods  of 
accomplishing  this  desired  end.” 

There  had  been  a spirited  debate  on  the  report  pre- 
sented on  the  23d  of  May  and  quite  a respectable 
minority  objected  to  the  detailed  specification  of  his- 
toric negotiations  and  differences,  beginning  with  the 
case  of  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce  in  1846  and  1848. 

The  minority  wanted  these  details  omitted  and  of- 
fered a report  in  which  they  included  the  first  seven 
paragraphs  of  the  report  of  the  committee,  then 
omitted  the  detailed  differences  and  substituted  the  fol- 
lowing : 

“ But  measures  preparatory  to  formal  fraternity 
would  be  defective  that  leave  out  of  view  questions  in 
dispute  between  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and 
ourselves.  These  questions  relate  to  the  course  pursued 
by  some  of  their  accredited  agents  whilst  prosecuting 
their  work  in  the  South,  and  to  property  which  has  been 
taken  and  held  by  them  to  this  day,  against  our  protest 
and  remonstrance. 

‘‘  Although  feeling  ourselves  sorely  aggrieved  in  these 
things,  we  stand  ready  to  meet  our  brothers  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  spirit  of  Christian 
candor,  and  to  compose  all  differences  upon  the  prin- 
ciples of  justice  and  equity. 


THE  CAPE  MAY  COMMISSION 


221 


“ It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  honored  representa- 
tives who  bore  fraternal  greetings  to  us  were  not  em- 
powered also  to  enter  upon  a settlement  of  these  vexed 
questions.  We  are  prepared  to  take  advanced  steps  in 
this  direction,  and  waiving  any  considerations  which 
might  justify  a greater  reserve,  we  will  not  only  ap- 
point a delegation  to  return  the  greeting  so  gracefully 
conveyed  to  us  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
but  we  will  also  provide  for  a commission  to  meet  a 
similar  commission  from  that  Church  for  the  purpose  of 
settling  disturbing  questions. 

“ Open  and  righteous  treatment  of  all  cases  of  com- 
plaint will  furnish  the  only  solid  ground  upon  which  we 
can  meet.  Eelations  of  amity  are  with  special  emphasis 
demanded  between  bodies  so  near  akin.  We  be 
brethren.  To  the  realization  of  this  the  families  of 
Methodism  are  called  by  the  movements  of  the  times. 
The  attractive  power  of  the  Cross  is  working  mightily. 
The  Christian  elements  in  the  world  are  all  astir  in  their 
search  for  each  other.  Christian  hearts  are  crying  to 
each  other  across  vast  spaces,  and  longing  for  fellow- 
ship. The  heart  of  Southern  Methodism  being  in  full 
accord  with  these  sentiments,  your  committee  submit 
the  following  resolutions  for  adoption.” 

The  resolutions  were  the  same  as  the  last  two  resolu- 
tions of  the  majority  report.  The  vote  was  sixty-five 
for  and  one  hundred  and  three  against,  and  this 
minority  report  was  rejected. 

Eemarks  in  the  discussions  and  the  different  pro- 
posals for  action,  and  probably  some  other  things, 
seem  to  have  suggested  the  propriety  of  passing  the 
three  additional  resolutions  of  the  last  day’s  session. 

The  very  things  alleged  against  the  action  of  repre- 


222 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


sentatives  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  “ to 
property  which  has  been  taken  and  held  by  them  to 
this  day,  against  our  protest  and  remonstrance,”  was 
alleged  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  against 
representatives  of  the  Church  South,  from  its  begin- 
ning down  to  the  two  General  Conferences  of  1871 
and  1876. 

It  was  plain,  therefore,  that  there  could  be  no  real, 
and  settled,  fraternity  between  the  two  bodies  until 
the  right  and  title  to  the  properties  in  question  had 
been  adjusted. 

In  order  to  reach  this  settlement  and  for  “ the  open- 
ing of  formal  fraternity  ” with  the  Church  South,  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
in  1872,  sent  three  delegates  to  the  1871  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and 
that  Conference  reciprocated  the  action  by  sending 
fraternal  delegates  in  response,  and  by  designating  a 
commission  to  compose  these  differences. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  General  Conference  of  1876 
met  this  by  adopting  the  following : 

“ Your  committee,  to  whom  was  referred  a resolution 
adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  borne  to  us  with  the 
Christian  salutations  of  our  sister  Church,  providing 
for  the  appointment  of  a commission  on  the  part  of 
that  body,  to  meet  a similar  commission  authorized  by 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  beg  leave  to  report 
that  they  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following 
resolution  : 

Resolved^  That,  in  order  to  remove  all  obstacles  to 
formal  fraternity  between  the  two  Churches,  our  Board 
of  Bishops  are  directed  to  appoint  a commission,  con- 


THE  CAPE  MAY  COMMISSION 


223 


sisting  of  three  ministers  and  two  laymen,  to  meet  a 
similar  commission  authorized  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  ad- 
just all  existing  difficulties.” 

In  compliance  with  this  authorization.  Bishop  Harris, 
representing  the  Board  of  Bishops,  announced  the  fol- 
lowing commissioners  to  meet  a similar  committee 
from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  namely : 
Morris  D.  C.  Crawford,  Enoch  L.  Fancher,  Erasmus  Q. 
Fuller,  Clinton  B.  Fisk,  John  P.  Newman.”  The  two 
laymen  were  Judge  Fancher  and  General  Fisk.  This 
was  on  the  20th  of  May. 

On  the  29th  of  May,  Bishop  Janes  presented  to  the 
General  Conference  the  certificate  of  the  commissioners 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  which  was 
referred  to  the  chairman  of  the  commission  appointed 
by  the  General  Conference. 

The  commissioners  appointed  by  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  were  Edward  H.  Myers, 
Kobert  K.  Hargrove,  Thomas  M.  Finney,  David  Clop- 
ton,  and  Kobert  B.  Yance. 

This  joint  commission  held  its  sessions  in  Cape  May, 
New  Jersey,  convening  on  the  16th  of  August,  1876, 
and  continuing  in  session  seven  days,  and,  because  of 
the  place  of  meeting,  it  has  been  commonly  called  the 
Cape  May  Commission. 

It  was  a favorable  moment  for  such  a meeting,  for 
the  re-unified  nation  was  celebrating  the  first  centennial 
of  its  birth — the  independence  of  the  United  States  of 
America  as  a nation. 

Because  of  the  circumstances  and  the  common 
national  thought  of  the  people  in  general,  there  was  a 
prevailing  disposition  to  forget  the  Civil  War  and  the 


224 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


divisive  question,  connected  therewith.  With  the  danger 
of  division  passed,  people  in  all  parts  gave  themselves 
up  to  a season  of  rejoicing  over  a perpetuated  national 
union  and  the  remembrance  of  the  common  history  of 
the  earlier  times  which  was  the  heritage  of  all,  and 
these  sentiments  were  calculated  to  strengthen  fraternal 
feelings  between  the  two  kindred  Churches. 

However,  the  question  before  the  joint  commission 
was  not  as  to  the  unification  of  the  two  denominations 
represented  in  the  commissions. 

The  Church  South,  in  its  General  Conference  of  1874, 
had  refused  to  concur  in  the  suggestion  of  organic  unity, 
as  it  had  previously  on  sundry  occasions,  but  it  did 
adopt,  as  has  been  noted,  a report  providing  for  a com- 
mission to  meet  a like  commission  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  to  settle  difficulties  between  the  two 
Churches.  This  action  referred  most  favorably  to 
“fraternal  relations,”  and  favored  this  settlement  of 
difficulties  as  “ essential  to  complete  fraternity.” 

It  was  now  pronounced  in  favor  of  “ fraternal  rela- 
tions,” and  the  commission  was  created  “ in  order  to 
remove  all  obstacles  to  formal  fraternity  between  the 
two  Churches.” 

The  purpose  of  the  joint  commission  was,  therefore, 
not  to  form  a union  between  the  two  bodies  but  to 
consider  and  adjust  unsettled  questions,  especially  as 
to  property,  and  to  devise  a modus  mvendi  which 
might  enable  the  two  Churches  to  operate  in  the  South 
with  some  degree  of  harmony. 

Certain  disputed  rights  as  to  property  here  and  there 
in  the  South  had  caused  a considerable  degree  of  agita- 
tion and  not  a little  unpleasant  feeling  between  parties 
representating  the  one  side  or  the  other,  especially 


THE  CAPE  MAY  COMMISSION 


225 


where  both  Churches  were  working  in  the  same  lo- 
cality. 

Some  of  these  property  disputes  were  results  of  the 
Civil  War  in  places  where  the  military  authorities  in 
control  had  authorized  or  permitted  the  representatives 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  use  certain  prop- 
erties where  the  churches  had  been  erected  previously 
by  the  Church  South.  Difficulties  of  this  character  also 
long  antedated  the  war  and  ran  back  to  the  times  fol- 
lowing the  formation  of  the  Church  South  in  1845. 
Then,  and  after  the  Civil  War,  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  declared  that  its  property  in  places  had  been 
carried  over  to  the  Church  South,  while  in  some  in- 
stances the  Southern  Church  asserted  similar  aggressions. 

Now  was  the  time  to  attempt  the  settlement  of  all 
such  differences  and  the  joint  commission  was  to  hear 
and  to  settle  principles  that  would  tend  to  harmony. 

Asa  summary  of  what  was  done  and  as  a revelation 
as  to  how  it  was  done,  the  joint  commission  issued  an 
address,  or  report,  “ To  the  Bishops,  the  Ministers,  and 
the  Members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.” 

In  the  opening  they  say:  “We,  the  commissioners 
appointed  by  authority  of  the  General  Conferences,  re- 
spectively, of  the  above-named  Churches,  to  remove  all 
obstacles  to  a formal  fraternity,  and  to  adjust  all  exist- 
ing difficulties  between  them,  deem  it  proper,  in  ad- 
vance of  our  report  to  the  General  Conferences  of  our 
respective  Churches,  to  communicate  to  you,  in  general 
terms,  the  result  of  the  recent  harmonious  session  of  our 
joint  commission.” 

As  to  the  method  by  which  the  commission  pro- 
ceeded the  paper  states  that  “After  a written  com- 


226 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


munication  from  the  commissioners  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  was  received  and  answered  by 
the  commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
both  Boards  met  in  joint  session,  the  labors  of  which 
were  continued  during  seven  days.  . . . 

“ If  any  in  the  Churches  entertained  the  fear,  previous 
to  our  meeting,  that  we  could  not  obtain  complete  har- 
mony of  sentiment  touching  the  momentous  questions 
to  be  determined,  they  will  be  rejoiced  to  learn  that 
after  having  given  due  attention  to  all  questions  in- 
volved in  the  proper  construction  of  a platform  of  com- 
plete fraternity  between  the  two  great  branches  of 
Episcopal  Methodism  in  the  United  States,  we  have  ar- 
rived at  a settlement  of  every  matter  affecting,  as  we 
suppose,  the  principles  of  a lasting  and  cordial  adjust- 
ment.” 

Referring  to  disputes  as  to  property,  the  address 
states  : “ There  were  two  principal  questions  to  be  con- 
sidered with  regard  to  Church  property  in  dispute  be- 
tween local  societies  of  the  two  Churches  ; first,  as  to 
the  legal  ownership  of  said  property ; and  second,  as  to 
whether  it  will  consist  with  strict  equity  or  promote 
Christian  harmony  or  the  cause  of  religion  to  dispossess 
those  societies  now  using  Church  property  which  was 
originally  intended  for  their  use  and  occupancy,  and  of 
which  they  have  acquired  possession,  though  they  may 
have  lost  legal  title  to  it  by  their  transfer  from  one 
Church  to  the  other.  We  have  considered  the  papers 
in  all  cases  that  have  been  brought  to  our  notice.  These 
arose  in  the  following  states:  Virginia,  West  Virginia, 
Maryland,  Tennessee,  Louisiana,  North  Carolina,  and 
South  Carolina.” 

It  will  be  noticed  that  all  these  cases  were  in  the 


THE  CAPE  MAY  COMMISSION 


227 


South,  and  that  no  difficulties  of  this  kind  were  raised 
in  the  North. 

Keferring  to  the  principles  of  settlement,  the  report 
continues : 

“ In  respect  to  some  of  these  cases,  we  have  given 
particular  directions,  but  for  all  other  cases  the  joint 
commission  unanimously  adopted  the  following  rules 
for  the  adjustment  of  adverse  claims  to  Church  prop- 
erty: 

“Kule  1.  In  cases  not  adjusted  by  the  joint  com- 
mission, any  Society  of  either  Church,  constituted  ac- 
cording to  its  Discipline,  now  occupying  the  Church 
property,  shall  remain  in  possession  thereof ; provided 
that  if  there  is  now  in  the  same  place  a society  of  more 
members  attached  to  the  other  Church,  and  which  has 
hitherto  claimed  the  use  of  the  property,  the  latter  shall 
be  entitled  to  possession. 

‘‘  Eule  2.  Forasmuch  as  we  have  no  power  to  annul 
decisions  respecting  Church  property  made  by  the  State 
Courts,  the  joint  commission  ordain  in  respect  thereof  : 

“ (1)  In  cases  in  which  such  a decision  has  been  made, 
or  in  which  there  exists  an  agreement,  the  same  shall  be 
carried  out  in  good  faith. 

“ (2)  In  communities  where  there  are  two  societies, 
one  belonging  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and 
the  other  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
which  have  adversely  claimed  the  Church  property,  it 
is  recommended  that  without  delay  they  amicably 
compose  their  differences,  irrespective  of  the  strict 
legal  title,  and  settle  the  same  according  to  Christian 
principles,  the  equities  of  the  particular  case,  and,  so 
far  as  practicable,  according  to  the  principle  of  the 
aforegoing  rule ; but  if  such  settlement  cannot  be 


228 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


speedily  made,  then  the  question  shall  be  referred  for 
equitable  decision  to  three  arbitrators,  one  to  be  chosen 
by  each  claimant  from  their  respective  societies,  and 
the  two  thus  chosen  shall  select  a third  person  not  con- 
nected with  either  of  said  Churches,  and  the  decision  of 
any  two  of  them  shall  be  final ; and, 

“ (3)  That  in  communities  in  which  there  is  but  one 
society.  Rule  1 shall  be  faithfully  observed  in  the  in- 
terest of  peace  and  fraternity. 

“ Rule  3.  Whenever  necessary  to  carry  the  forego- 
ing rules  into  effect,  the  legal  title  to  Church  property 
shall  be  accordingly  transferred. 

“ Rule  4.  These  rules  shall  take  effect  immediately.’’ 

Then  the  joint  commission  followed  with  this  recom- 
mendation : 

“In  order  to  further  promote  the  peaceful  results 
contemplated  by  this  joint  commission,  and  to  remove 
as  far  as  may  be  all  occasion  for  hostility  between  the 
two  Churches,  we  recommend  to  the  members  of  both, 
as  a wise  rule  of  settlement  where  property  is  in  con- 
test, and  one  or  both  are  weak,  that  they  compose  their 
differences  by  uniting  in  the  same  communion,  and  in 
all  cases  that  the  ministers  and  members  recognize  each 
other  in  all  the  relations  of  fraternity,  as  possessed  of 
ecclesiastical  rights  and  privileges  of  equal  dignity  and 
validity.  They  should  each  receive  from  the  other 
ministers  and  members  in  good  standing  with  the  same 
alacrity  and  credit  as  if  coming  from  their  own  Church, 
and,  without  interference  with  each  other’s  institutions 
or  missions,  they  should,  nevertheless,  cooperate  in  all 
Christian  enterprises.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  in  re- 
spect to  some  mere  matters  of  opinion  that  all  ministers 
and  members  in  either  Church  will  be  in  accord,  but 


THE  CAPE  MAY  COMMISSION 


229 


we  trust  and  believe  that  a spirit  of  fellowship  and 
mutual  regard  will  pervade  the  reconciled  ranks  of  the 
entire  ministry  and  membership  of  both  Churches. 

“We  believe,  also,  that  their  supreme  allegiance  to 
the  cause  of  the  Great  Master  will  triumph  over  all 
variation  of  personal  sentiment,  and  will  soon  exalt 
the  claims  of  brotherly  affection,  that  from  this  aus- 
picious hour  a new  epoch  in  Methodism  will  begin  its 
brighter  history,  so  that  we  shall  know  no  unfraternal 
Methodism  in  the  United  States,  or  even  in  the  wide 
world.” 

It  may  be  remarked  that  in  all  this  deliverance  of 
the  joint  commission  of  the  two  Churches  there  is  noth- 
ing that  disputes,  or  raises  any  question  as  to  the  right 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  be  in  the  South, 
and  it  has  been  interpreted  as  conceding  that  there  was 
no  line  of  separation  limiting  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  to  the  North,  and  that  there  was  nothing  to 
prevent  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  from  being 
anywhere  in  the  South  and  there  to  work  side  by  side 
with  the  Church  South. 

The  chief  question  was  as  to  the  adjustment  of  dis- 
puted claims  as  to  property  in  the  South,  where  under 
the  recommendations  and  rules  laid  down  by  the  joint 
commission,  both  Churches  could  retain  property  and 
carry  on  their  work.  This  left  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  in  the  South  by  conceded  right  and  by  the 
concurrence  of  the  commission  of  the  Church  South, 
so  that  never  again  could  the  point  be  legally  or  fairly 
raised  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  no 
right  to  be  in  the  South. 

From  this  time  the  two  Churches  were  to  work  the  one 
beside  the  other,  as  the  report  phrased  and  illustrated  it : 


230 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


“ Two  by  two  the  apostles  began  the  promulgation 
of  Christianity  in  the  world.  They  were  companion 
evangelists,  distinct  in  their  individuality;  but  they 
were,  at  the  same  time,  one  in  spirit,  purpose  and 
fellowship.  Their  itinerant  successors  in  the  chief 
Churches  of  American  Methodism,  in  restored  fra- 
ternity, will  vie  with  each  other  to  wave  the  banner  of 
the  cross  in  this  Western  world,  and  henceforth  will 
proclaim  that  these  Churches  are  one  in  spirit,  one  in 
purpose,  one  in  fellowship.” 

So  the  two  Churches  like  two  apostles  were  to  go  to- 
gether in  the  prosecution  of  their  work. 

The  finality  and  completeness  of  the  adjustment  is 
asserted  by  the  joint  commission  in  very  strong  terms. 
The  commission  considered  that  it  had  constructed  “ a 
platform  of  complete  fraternity,”  and  that  it  had  “ ar- 
rived at  a settlement  of  every  matter  affecting,  . . . 

the  principles  of  a lasting  and  cordial  adjustment.” 

According  to  these  declarations  all  the  differences 
between  the  two  Churches  were  now  arranged  to  the 
satisfaction  of  both  parties.  Everything  was  settled. 
All  disputes  were  harmonized,  and  they  had  arrived 
at  the  desired  consummation  of  a unanimous  agree- 
ment of  complete  fraternity.”  The  adjustment  was, 
and  was  to  be,  not  only  “ lasting  ” but  also  cordial.” 
They  had  succeeded  ‘‘in  uniting  between  them  the 
broken  cords  of  affectionate  and  brotherly  fraterniza- 
tion,” and  from  that  moment  there  would  be  “ no  un- 
fraternal  Methodism.” 

Hence  the  report  said : “ These  fraternized  Churches 
have  no  further  occasion  for  sectional  disputes  or  acri- 
monious differences ; they  may  henceforth  remember 
their  common  origin,  pursue  their  fruit  bearing  work, 


THE  CAPE  MAY  COMMISSION 


231 


and  rejoice  in  their  own  and  each  other’s  success,  while 
engaged  in  the  same  great  mission  of  converting  the 
world  to  Christ.” 

According  to  this  the  arrangement  was  not  only 
final  but  also  complete.  Everything  had  been  adjusted. 
No  further  unpleasantness  could  be  possible.  Never 
again  would  there  be,  or  could  there  be,  any  occasion 
for  difficulty  or  unfraternal  difference,  but,  anywhere 
and  everywhere  in  the  South,  the  two  Churches  could, 
and  would,  without  friction,  work  side  by  side.  Para- 
dise was  restored. 

The  commission  made  a declaration  as  to  the  status 
of  the  Church  South,  in  which  it  said  : “ Since  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
was  consummated  in  1845,  by  the  voluntary  exercise 
of  the  right  of  the  Southern  Annual  Conferences  and 
ministers  and  members  to  adhere  to  that  communion, 
it  has  been  an  Evangelical  Church  reared  on  Scriptural 
foundations,  and  her  ministers  and  members,  with  those 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  have  constituted 
one  Methodist  family,  though  in  distinct  ecclesiastical 
connections.” 

Evidently  there  was  no  disposition  at  any  time  to 
deny  that  the  Church  South  was  a legitimate  Church 
and  an  Evangelical  Church,  and,  at  any  time,  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  would  have  admitted  that 
the  Church  South  was  a Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  from  the  old  stock.  No  one  ever  disputed  that. 
Further,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  would  always 
concede  that  the  Church  South  with  itself  constituted 
the  same  Methodist  family.  Neither  was  there  any 
dispute  as  to  the  right  of  the  ministers  and  members 
in  the  South  to  become  a Church,  or  as  to  the  fact  that 


232 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


the  said  ministers  and  members  did,  in  1845,  of  their 
own  free  will  and  accord  organize  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South.  There  was  no  dispute  as  to 
that  but  rather  the  emphasis  was  put  on  the  fact  that 
they  themselves  did  it  voluntarily.  They  did  it  and 
nobody  else. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  commissioners  freely  con- 
ceded these  things.  Indeed  these  commissioners  were 
conciliatory  in  the  extreme,  and  so  much  so,  that  pos- 
sibly without  fully  perceiving  its  bearing,  on  one  point 
they  conceded  too  much.  So  anxious  were  they  to 
reach  harmony  and  fraternity  that  they  apparently 
were  blinded  to  an  historical  inaccuracy  which  was 
issued  in  the  declaration  of  the  joint  commission. 

The  report  of  this  commission  says : 

‘‘  As  to  the  status  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and 
their  co5rdinate  relation  as  legitima^te  branches  of 
Episcopal  Methodism,  each  of  said  Churches  is  a 
legitimate  branch  of  Episcopal  Methodism  in  the 
United  States,  having  a common  origin  in  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  organized  in  1784.” 

To  say  the  least,  this  must  have  been  an  inadvert- 
ence on  the  part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  com- 
missioners, for  that  is  contrary  to  historic  facts.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  did  not 
branch  from  anything  in  1844  or  1845,  though  min- 
isters and  members  in  the  South  by  “ the  voluntary 
exercise  ” of  their  power  did  dissolve  their  connection 
with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  organize  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  Certainly  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  did  not  branch  from  the 
Church  South. 


THE  CAPE  MAY  COMMISSION 


233 


The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  not  a branch  ” 
having  its  “ origin  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
organized  in  1Y84.”  It  was  organized  in  1784  and  is 
that  very  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  “organized  in 
1784,”  which,  without  a break  in  its  continuity,  has 
come  down  past  1844  and  1845  and  down  to  the  present 
moment. 

It  is  not  a branch  but  the  main  stream.  It  is  not  a 
branch  but  the  original  tree  with  its  roots  reaching 
back  to  1784. 

The  branch  is  the  Church  South,  and  it  branched  off 
the  main  trunk,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in 
1845,  but  the  old  tree  continued  to  grow  on. 

This  idea  of  both  Churches  being  branches  of  the 
original  Church  founded  in  1784  is  an  evident  error. 
Both  are  not  branches  from  the  same  original  stock. 
In  an  accommodated  sense  it  may  be  said  that  both  are 
parts  of  Episcopal  Methodism  but  not  that  both  are 
branches  of  the  same  original  trunk.  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  of  1784  is  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  of  the  present  time.  One  of  the  Churches 
branched  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and 
that  one  was  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 
That  is  the  branch.  The  other  is  the  original  trunk. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  in  the  entire  action  of  the 
joint  commission  there  is  no  declaration  in  favor  of  the 
union  of  the  two  denominations.  Union  is  not  sug- 
gested or  even  considered  in  the  report. 

This  seems  somewhat  singular  when  it  is  remembered 
that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  or  its  repre- 
sentatives had  so  frequently  suggested  organic  unity, 
but  then  it  is  also  to  be  recalled  that  the  Church  South 
or  its  representatives  had  steadily  declined  to  consider 


234 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


organic  union.  So  this  may  be  another  concession  on 
the  part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  commissioners  for 
unanimity  in  what  the  joint  commission  did  report. 

Certain  allusions  in  the  report  are  against  any  idea 
of  organic  unity.  Thus  the  phrase  “ though  in  distinct 
ecclesiastical  connections,”  and  the  suggestion  that  the 
two  Churches  should  move  ‘‘  two  by  two  (like)  the 
apostles.”  So  in  the  paragraph  of  the  report  which 
says : 

‘‘  Astronomers  tell  us  of  dual-stars,  revolving  together 
in  mutual  relation  and  harmony,  whose  differing  colors 
are  so  much  the  complement  of  each  other  as  to  produce 
a pure  white  light  of  exceeding  brilliancy.  The  dual 
Churches  of  American  Methodism  will  henceforth  re- 
volve in  mutual  fellowship  and  harmony,  so  much  the 
complement  of  one  another,  as  together  to  produce  the 
pure  and  blended  light  of  Christian  charity  and  fraternal 
love.” 

The  dual  Churches,  like  the  ‘‘  dual-stars,”  “ revolving 
together  in  mutual  relation  and  harmony  ” would  shine 
in  and  on  the  same  field,  blending  their  light  and 
illuminating  the  same  people,  and,  “ Henceforth  ” the 
two  bodies  may  hail  each  other  as  from  the  auxiliary 
ranks  of  one  great  army.  The  only  differences  they 
will  foster  will  be  those  friendly  rivalries  that  spring 
from  earnest  endeavors  to  further  to  the  utmost  the 
triumphs  of  the  Gospel  of  peace.  Whatever  progress 
is  made  by  the  one  Church,  or  by  the  other,  will 
occasion  general  joy.  They  will  rejoice  in  each  other’s 
success  as  a common  good;  and,  amid  the  thousand 
glorious  memories  of  Methodism,  they  will  go  forward 
devoted  to  their  one  work  of  spreading  Scriptural 
holiness  over  these  lands.” 


THE  CAPE  MAY  COMMISSION 


235 


But  as  there  were  dual-stars,  the  two  bodies  were 
not  to  be  united  into  one  and  be  one  organic  unity,  but 
to  be  two  Churches  still. 

However,  according  to  the  report  a new  era  had 
begun.  They  were  to  “compose  their  differences,” 
and  there  was  to  be  “ no  unfraternal  Methodism,”  for, 
though  distinct  and  independent,  “ these  Churches  are 
one  in  spirit,  one  in  purpose,  one  in  fellowship,”  and, 
though  separate,  yet,  like  double  stars  side  by  side, 
they  would  blend  their  rays,  illuminate  the  same  field, 
and  shine  upon  the  same  people.  A “ new  epoch  ” had 
dawned. 

With  this  outcome,  and  there  was  nothing  impossible 
about  it,  the  commission,  notwithstanding  an  error  or 
two,  would  have  accomplished  very  much.  Whether 
its  prophecies  were  reliable  the  future  would  determine. 


XXIII 


FRATERNITY  IN  PAN-METHODISTIC  CON- 
FERENCES 

Many  official  and  unofficial  expressions  in 
favor  of  union  with  the  Church  South  were 
uttered  from  time  to  time  through  the  years 
by  representative  men  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

In  the  first  Ecumenical  Methodist  Conference  held 
in  City  Road  Chapel,  London,  England,  in  the  month 
of  September,  1881,  there  were  more  or  less  positive 
suggestions  pointing  towards  some  form  of  unity. 

In  the  sermon  of  Bishop  Matthew  Simpson,  preached 
at  the  opening  of  that  Ecumenical  Conference,  he  said : 

“ There  are  those,  however,  who  disparage  Method- 
ism because  it  has  had  divisions,  and  they  predict  its 
early  disintegration.  For  the  same  reason  Christianity 
itself  might  be  disparaged.  The  learned  and  eloquent 
Bossuet  wrote  a work  against  Protestantism  on  account 
of  its  variations — showing  its  weakness  ; but,  neverthe- 
less, in  the  last  century,  its  progress  has  been  more 
rapid  than  ever  before.  I am  not  sure  that  these  divi- 
sions are  an  unmixed  evil.  They  seem  to  me  to  have 
compensations  also.  With  the  different  tastes  and 
habits  of  men,  I fancy  that,  through  Churches  some- 
what differently  organized,  and  with  different  usages, 
more  minds  may  be  won  for  Christ.  Certainly  we  may 
be  provoked  even  to  love  and  good  works.  It  seems 
also  to  me  that  as  God  has  showed  us  physical  life  in 

236 


PAN-METHODISTIC  CONFERENCES  237 


almost  every  possible  form,  He  means  that  we  shall  un- 
derstand that  Christian  life  may  exist  and  flourish  in 
different  organizations  and  usages.  He  would  show  us 
that  there  is  no  sacredness  in  mere  ecclesiasticism.  Or- 
ganization has  its  value,  and  every  member  of  each 
Church  should  be  true  to  his  association  ; yet  the  organ- 
ization is  only  the  temple  in  which  the  life  dwells.  The 
organization  is  of  man.  The  life  is  of  Christ.  Were 
there  but  one  organization  with  certain  usages  that 
prospered,  we  should  think  its  forms  and  usages  were 
in  themselves  sacred,  we  should  grow  narrow  and 
bigoted.  Our  Church  would  be  the  Church,  and  all 
others  would  be  schismatics.  But  when  we  see  life  in 
other  Churches,  we  learn  that  the  God  of  the  Jew  is  the 
God  of  the  Gentile  also.  We  recognize  a brother  be- 
loved in  every  member  of  the  family,  and  praise  God 
for  the  infinitude  of  His  grace.  Quite  possibly,  also,  in 
these  separate  organizations  a little  more  flexibility  may 
be  gained,  and,  while  holding  fast  to  the  Great  Head 
of  the  Church,  and  contending  earnestly  for  the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints,  we  may  learn  from  each 
other  something  that  may  help  us  in  conquering  the 
world  for  Christ.” 

Then  referring  specifically  to  Methodism,  the  Bishop 
continued : “ As  to  the  divisions  in  the  Methodist  fam- 
ily, there  is  little  to  mar  the  family  likeness.  For,  first, 
there  has  been  among  the  Wesleyan  ranks  no  division 
as  to  doctrines.  The  clear  statements  in  Mr.  Wesley’s 
sermons,  and  the  doctrinal  character  of  the  hymns  con- 
stantly sung,  have  aided  in  keeping  us  one.  All  over 
the  world  Methodist  theology  is  a unit.  Nor,  secondly, 
is  there  any  radical  difference  in  usages.  The  class- 
meeting, the  prayer-meeting,  the  love-feast,  the  watch- 


238 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


night,  though  more  or  less  strictly  observed,  are  known 
everywhere  in  Methodism.  So  far  as  the  membership 
is  concerned,  there  is  scarcely  a single  difference.  Even 
in  the  Connexional  bonds  there  is  general  likeness.  The 
itinerant  ministry,  and  the  quarterly  and  annual  con- 
ferences, exist  in  almost  every  branch.  In  the  manner 
of  legislation,  and  in  the  mode  of  affecting  ministerial 
changes,  there  are  some  differences ; but  the  points  of 
agreement  are  so  numerous  as  compared  with  the  differ- 
ences that  we  are  emphatically  one.  We  have  no  di- 
visions as  to  vestments,  and  candles,  and  genuflections. 
We  have  no  High  Church,  or  Low  Church,  or  Broad 
Church.  Differ  as  we  may,  there  is  something  in  all  of 
us  which  the  world  recognizes.” 

Picturing  a beautiful  grove  he  said  : “ Our  Churches 
resemble  these  trees.  The  trunks  near  the  earth  stand 
stiffly  and  widely  apart.  The  more  nearly  towards 
heaven  they  ascend,  the  closer  and  closer  they  come  to- 
gether, until  they  form  one  beautiful  canopy,  under 
which  the  sons  of  men  enjoy  both  shelter  and  happi- 
ness. Then  I thought  of  that  beautiful  prayer  of  the 
Saviour,  ‘ That  they  all  may  be  one,  that  the  world 
may  know  that  Thou  hast  sent  Me,  and  that  Thou  hast 
loved  them  as  Thou  hast  loved  Me.’  In  loving  obedience 
to  Christ’s  commands,  and  in  earnest  efforts  for  the  ex- 
tension of  His  kingdom  by  doing  good  to  men,  is  true 
oneness  with  Him  to  be  found.  Those  who’  have  the 
spirit  of  Christ,  who  go  about  always  doing  good,  will 
be  like-minded.” 

Bishop  Simpson  had  years  before  this  indicated  his 
desire  for  the  organic  union  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South. 


PAN-METHODISTIC  CONFERENCES  239 


In  this  Ecumenical  Conference  the  idea  of  Christian 
oneness  was  emphasized  rather  than  organic  unity. 

The  Reverend  Augustus  C.  George,  D.  D.,  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  read  an  essay  in  which  he 
said : “ Whatever  promotes  Christian  unity  ought  to 
be  cultivated,  and  whatever  is  calculated  to  hinder  it 
ought  to  be  avoided.  No  false  standards  must  be  set 
up.  Uniformity  must  not  be  demanded ; nor  must  it 
be  concluded  that  any  one  is  not  in  Christ  because  he  is 
not  with  us.  The  visible  unity  exists  because  of  the  in- 
visible unity,  and  the  invisible  unity  has  its  origin  and 
inspiration  in  Christian  experience. 

“ So  we  being  many,  are  one  body  in  Christ,  and  every 
one  members  one  of  another.  . . . The  increase  and 

manifestation  of  Christian  unity  ‘among  ourselves’ 
refers,  it  may  be  presumed,  to  the  maintenance  of  proper 
fraternal  relations  between  the  different  branches  of  the 
world- wide  Methodism.  There  are  many  Methodist  or- 
ganizations— I think  we  will  agree  that  there  are  too 
many — but  there  is  only  one  Methodism.  The  family 
likeness  is  everywhere  observable.  ...  We  must 
secure  a confederation  of  Methodist  Churches  in  all 
lands.  ‘ The  substantial  unity  of  Methodism  the  world 
over,’  says  the  London  Methodist  Recorder  in  a recent 
issue,  ‘ is  a providential  fact  of  the  profoundest  signifi- 
cance, pregnant,  probably,  with  the  grandest  results  in 
the  developments  of  the  future;  and  the  day  that 
should  witness  the  recognized  oneness  of  all  the 
Methodist  Churches,  not  in  organic  union,  but  in 
fraternal  alliance  and  confederation,  would  be  one  of 
the  brightest  that  has  ever  dawned  upon  the  earth.’ 
There  can  be  no  doubt  of  it ; for  when  the  world- wide 
Methodism  becomes  not  only  a consulting  but  also  a 


240 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


confederated  Methodism,  a long  step  will  be  taken 
towards  an  effective  answer  to  our  Saviour’s  high- 
priestly  prayer  for  the  visible  oneness  of  His  disciples 
on  the  earth.  . . . It  is  not  essential  that  we  be- 

come organically  united,  nor  is  it  desirable  in  every 
instance ; but  it  is  important  that  we  have  spiritual 
communion,  and  that  our  fraternity  be,  in  some  way, 
embodied  and  emblazoned  before  the  eyes  of  men.  . . . 

“ But  great  as  is  the  need  that  there  should  be  fewer 
Methodist  bodies — and  this  need  will  be  generally 
recognized — the  necessity  is  still  greater  that  amongst 
all  Methodists  there  should  be  fraternity  and  confedera- 
tion. The  way  to  this  desirable  result  seems  to  be 
plainly  indicated  in  the  preliminary  steps  which  led  to 
the  convening  of  this  Ecumenical  Conference.  There 
have  been,  within  certain  limits  and  for  given  purposes, 
a representation  and  cooperation  of  the  different 
Methodist  organizations  of  all  lands.  ...  If  these 
committees  could  be  enlarged  and  continued,  without 
executive  power  or  legislative  authority,  but  charged 
with  the  duty  of  consultation  and  advisory  supervision 
of  all  Methodist  interests,  what  occasions  for  differences 
they  might  remove,  and  what  blessed  impulses  they 
might  impart  to  our  one  mighty,  matchless,  majestic 
Methodism ! . . . 

“ The  chief  thing  needed  is  the  spirit  of  fraternity, 
the  life  and  love  of  Jesus,  and  a constant  conviction 
that  Methodism,  however  organized  or  distinguished,  is 
a unity,  and  has  one  and  the  same  work  to  accomplish.” 

The  Reverend  Dr.  Otis  II.  Tiffany,  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  said  in  the  same  Ecumenical  Confer- 
ence : “ Organic  union,  if  it  were  attainable,  would  not 
be  found  flexible  enough  in  practice  for  a Providential 


PAN-METHODISTIC  CONFERENCES  241 


Church,  which  must  enter  every  open  door,  and  adapt 
its  agencies  to  meet  every  pressing  emergency.  But 
unison  in  movement,  and  agreement  in  spirit,  are  cer- 
tainly within  our  reach.  . . . The  world  counts 

separation  antagonism,  failing  to  see  the  inter-com- 
municating links  which  bind  us  to  each  other.  It  can- 
not see  the  relation  of  the  subordinated  denomination 
to  the  universal  Church ; it  does  not  distinguish  between 
the  infinite  dignity  of  the  rock  of  ages,  and  the 
temporary  homes  men  build  upon  its  giant  breast.  But 
we  must  show  and  prove  to  them,  and  convince  them, 
that  tabernacles  for  Moses  and  for  Elias  do  not  diminish 
the  infinite  glory  of  the  transfigured  Christ.  This  we 
can  do  more  surely  by  manifesting  the  spirit  of  Christ 
in  our  separate  organizations  than  by  consolidations  and 
absorptions,  and  the  spirit  of  love  shall  prove  the  unity 
of  the  Churches.  . . . This  would  be  practical 

union  maintaining  the  validity  of  the  existing  Churches, 
but  enlarging  the  scope  of  their  influence  as  hand-in- 
hand  they  compass  the  world — their  ‘ parish.’  ” 

These  were  utterances  at  the  First  Ecumenical  Meth- 
odist Conference.  Had  it  not  been  a Pan-Methodistic 
body  possibly  the  expressions  might  have  had  a more 
direct  reference  to  some  of  the  American  Churches, 
but  they  were  sufficient  to  indicate  the  trend  towards 
fraternity,  the  recognition  of  “invisible  unity,”  and 
the  desire  for  general  cooperation,  though  there  was 
little  or  no  emphasis  placed  on  organic  unity.  Doctor 
George,  however,  in  his  address  commended  the  union 
of  the  Wesleyan  Methodists  and  the  New  Connexion 
Methodists  in  Canada  and  also  the  steps  taken  towards 
the  organic  union  of  the  different  Methodist  bodies  in 
Australia. 


242 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


About  three  years  after  the  First  Ecumenical  Meth- 
odist Conference  occurred  the  hundredth  anniversary 
of  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America  which  had  been  organ- 
ized in  the  Christmas  season  of  1784.  It  was  decided 
to  celebrate  that  event  by  a Centennial  Methodist  Con- 
ference and  the  Centennial  Conference  was  held  in  the 
city  of  Baltimore,  Maryland,  December  9-17,  1884. 

This  brought  together  representatives  from  different 
American  Methodist  Churches,  especially  from  the 
Episcopal  Methodisms,  the  chief  of  which  were  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South. 

Their  coming  together  in  the  Conference  was  calcu- 
lated to  start  thought  as  to  why  there  was  not  the 
unity  that  existed  in  the  Christmas  Conference  one 
hundred  years  before,  and  that,  doubtless,  must  have 
raised  a question  as  to  the  necessity  of  so  many  divi- 
sions in  1884. 

In  the  Pastoral  Address  “ To  the  Methodist  People 
in  the  United  States  and  Canada,”  which  was  reported 
from  a committee  by  the  Reverend  Bishop  Stephen  M. 
Merrill,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  there  oc- 
curs the  following : 

“ Not  least  among  the  evils  we  deplore  as  Methodists 
is  the  spirit  of  strife  and  division  which,  we  are  sorry 
to  say,  is  not  yet  wholly  eradicated  from  our  Zion. 
Far  be  it  from  us  to  pronounce  every  division  of  the 
Church  schismatical.  There  has  been,  doubtless,  some 
providential  ordering  in  the  denominational  organiza- 
tions of  Christendom,  yet  the  multiplication  of  separate 
Churches  on  trivial  grounds  is  not  to  be  encouraged. 
We  are  happy  to  believe  that  the  period  of  dissensions 


PAN-METHODISTIC  CONFERENCES  243 


is  well-nigh  over.  We  hail  the  dawn  of  the  better  day, 
and  rejoice  in  the  rising  spirit  of  fraternity  which 
promises  much  for  the  future  success  of  the  cause  we 
love.  From  this  time  onward  our  principal  rivalries 
should  be  to  excel  in  good  works.  We  congratulate 
our  Canadian  brethren  upon  the  success  which  has  at- 
tended their  movement  for  uniting  the  forces  of  Meth- 
odism in  the  Dominion.  May  their  highest  anticipa- 
tions be  fully  realized.  We  of  the  States  may  not 
follow  their  example  in  consolidation,  but  we  should 
not  fall  behind  them  in  ‘ endeavoring  to  keep  the  unity 
of  the  Spirit  in  the  bonds  of  peace.’  ” 

This  was  unanimously  adopted. 

Another  significant  proposition  was  in  a paper  nu- 
merously signed  by  representatives  of  five  Methodist 
bodies,  and  presented  by  the  Reverend  J.  B.  McFerrin, 
D.  D.,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 
Expressing  the  belief  that  the  Centennial  Conference 
had  “strengthened  the  bond  of  brotherhood,”  the 
paper,  among  other  things,  had  the  following  resolu- 
tions : 

Besolved,  That  we  respectfully  commend  to  the 
bishops  of  the  episcopal,  and  the  chief  officers  of  the 
n on-episcopal,  Methodist  Churches  represented  in  this 
Conference  to  consider  whether  informal  conferences 
between  them  could  not  be  held  with  profit  from  time 
to  time  concerning  matters  of  common  interest  to  their 
respective  bodies. 

“ Resolved^  That  we  shall  be  greatly  pleased  to  see 
these  bonds  of  brotherhood  and  fellowship  increased 
and  strengthened  more  and  more  in  the  future. 

Resolved,  That  any  occasion  that  may  bring  our 
respective  Churches  together  in  convention  for  the 


244 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


promotion  of  these  objects  will  always  be  hailed  with 
profound  satisfaction.’’ 

Bishop  John  M.  Walden,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  moved  that  the  paper  be  adopted  by  a rising 
vote,  which  was  done. 

Another  fraternal  incident  was  the  following  resolu- 
tion offered  by  Dr.  H.  B.  Eidgaway,  Dr.  W.  L.  Hypes, 
and  Bishop  E.  S.  Foster,  all  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church : 

“ Resolved^  That  this  Conference  express  its  high 
gratification  that  the  venerable  Eev.  J.  B.  McFerrin, 
D.  D.,  Eev.  Jesse  Boring,  D.  D.,  Eev.  James  E.  Evans, 
D.  D.,  and  Eev.  Andrew  Hunter,  D.  D.,  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South;  and  the  Eev.  Joseph 
M.  Trimble,  D.  D.,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
who  were  members  of  the  General  Conference  at  New 
York  in  1844,  have  been  present  with  us  and  have  con- 
tributed by  their  counsels  and  prayers  to  the  harmony 
of  our  session.” 

This  was  a graceful  waving  of  the  olive  branch.  In 
1844  the  General  Conference  vras  unharmonious  but 
there  was  harmony  in  this  Conference  of  1884,  and  the 
representatives  of  both  sides  of  the  ancient  controversy 
met,  and  were  greeted,  as  brothers  beloved.  Of  course 
the  resolution  was  adopted. 

The  Second  Ecumenical  Methodist  Conference  was 
held  in  the  city  of  Washington,  in  the  month  of 
October,  1891.  In  this  were  the  representatives  of 
world-wide  Methodism. 

Bishop  Charles  H.  Fowler,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  said : 

“ There  is  but  one  law  woven  into  the  history  of  all 
peoples  and  filtered  into  the  blood  of  all  races  and 


PAN-METHODISTIC  CONFERENCES  245 


molding  the  statesmanship  of  all  ages,  and  that  is  this : 
The  enduring  nations  have  been  great  nations.  Unity 
is  strength, 

‘‘  This  law  holds  with  unabated  power  over  every 
branch  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  holds  over  the 
power  of  Methodism.  You  and  I may  nurse  our  petty 
politics  and  cavil  about  the  size  of  a button  or  the  cut 
of  a garment  and  amuse  ourselves  with  the  shades  of 
our  brigade  plumes  while  the  common  enemies  of  our 
evangelism  march  through  the  breaks  in  our  ranks, 
leaving  us  in  our  weakness  to  mourn  over  our  defeats. 
But  there  is  a wiser  and  a wider  statesmanship  within 
our  reach,  which  shall  close  up  all  breaks  in  the  ranks 
of  Methodism,  economize  all  power  in  her  vast  ex- 
penditures, utilize  the  helpfulness  of  kindly  friends,  and 
compel  the  respect  of  the  skeptical  classes.” 

The  Reverend  A.  S.  Hunt,  D.  D.,  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  in  his  set  address  on  ‘‘Christian 
Unity  ” said : “ It  seems  to  me,  sir,  that  the  followers 
of  Christ  of  every  name  have  occasion  to  deplore  the 
fact  that  there  is  not  more  union — visible  union — 
among  them.  While  I must  regard  the  union  of  all 
Christians  in  a single  visible  organization  as  impracti- 
cable, and  perhaps  undesirable,  we  surely  ought  to  have 
far  more  union  than  now  exists  ; and  more  we  should 
have  if  at  the  outset  we  would  keep  clearly  in  mind 
the  distinction  between  union  and  unity.  . . . 

“ Let  us,  then,  distinctly  note  that  Christian  union 
must  be  the  outgrowth  of  Christian  unity.  Still 
further,  Christian  unity,  as  distinguished  from  Chris- 
tian union,  has  various  phases  and  degrees. 

“ There  is  a kind  of  unity  which  exists  between  two 
or  more  believers  whose  tastes  and  temperaments  are 


246 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


similar.  Such  unity  may,  indeed,  be  Christian,  but  it 
grows  largely  out  of  natural  affinities.  Again,  we  have 
a kind  of  unity  which  exists  between  believers  who 
entertain  kindred  views  concerning  doctrines  and 
modes  of  worship  and  church  polity.  This  also  is 
Christianity  in  part,  but  not  wholly  so.  Once  more, 
there  is  a unity  of  a higher  and  richer  type  which 
gives  a subordinate  place  to  matters  of  taste  and 
temperament,  to  modes  of  worship  and  forms  of 
church  polity,  and  to  minor  points  of  doctrine,  and 
consists  in  the  blessed  fact  that  believers  are  one  in 
Christ  Jesus;  for  we  are,  indeed,  the  body  of  Christ 
while  we  are  members  in  particular.  But,  sir,  there  is 
something  higher  still.  . . . 

“ If  we  ever  need  to  remember  the  power  of  the 
supernatural  it  is  when  we  are  attempting  to  master 
this  question  of  Christian  unity.  Turning  to  the  Re- 
deemer’s prayer,  we  find  Him  asking  ‘ that  they  may 
all  be  one ; even  as  Thou,  Father,  art  in  Me,  and  I in 
Thee,  that  they  also  may  be  in  us.’  The  Authorized 
Version  reads:  ‘May  be  one  in  us,’  but  the  Revised 
Version  very  properly  omits  the  word  as  it  is  not 
in  the  text  of  the  original.  That  they  may  be  in  us  ; 
that  they  may,  by  the  help  of  God’s  grace,  apprehend 
the  unity  of  God,  and  dwell  in  that  unity.  We,  even 
we,  may  be  encompassed  by  the  divine  unity.  When 
we  enter  this  inner  shrine,  this  holy  of  holies,  and  verily 
dwell  in  God,  the  question  of  our  unity  with  all  who 
truly  love  Christ  finds  its  solution.  There  is  no  other 
solution  which  will  bear  all  tests  and  endure  forever. 
Here  is  the  real  secret  of  all  genuine  Christian  unity. 

“ And  now,  sir,  it  is  time  for  me  to  say  that  when 
this  unity  is  apprehended  it  will  ever  be  seeking  to  ex- 


PAN-METHODISTIC  CONFERENCES  247 


press  itself  in  union.  If  we  each  and  all  were  really 
dwelling  in  God  it  would  be  easy  to  recognize  our 
family  relationship,  and  manifest  our  delight  in  each 
other’s  prosperity.  ...  If  God  will  breathe  upon 
us  this  spirit  of  unity  I do  not  doubt  that  when 
our  next  Ecumenical  Conference  shall  convene,  while 
the  aggregate  membership  of  the  Methodism  of  the 
wide  world  will  be  largely  increased,  the  delegates 
assembled  will  not  represent  twenty-nine  different 
Methodist  organizations.” 

The  Reverend  C.  F.  Reid,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  said:  “There  are  some  things  which 
we  can  do  a great  deal  better  by  being  more  closely 
united : We  do  not  presume  at  this  time  to  ask  you  for 
an  organic  union,  either  on  the  mission  field  or  among 
the  Churches  at  home.  That  will  come,  we  hope,  in 
God’s  good  time.” 

At  the  same  session  the  Reverend  E.  E.  Hoss,  D.  D.,  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  said : “ It  is 
my  distinct  and  deliberate  conviction  that  our  Method- 
ist denominational  divisions  in  America  have  been  a 
great  advantage  to  us.  It  is  not  my  habit,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, to  feel  one  thing  in  my  heart  and  speak  another 
thing  with  my  lips.  An  organic  unity  of  the  different 
branches  of  Methodism  in  America  is  a problem  which, 
if  not  impossible  of  solution,  is  at  least  one  of  tremen- 
dous difficulty.  Leaving  all  other  questions  and  all 
other  considerations  out  of  view,  the  size  of  the  Meth- 
odist family  in  this  country  makes  the  problem  of  or- 
ganic unity  one  of  great  difficulty.  I have  room 
enough  in  my  heart  for  all  of  my  brethren  and  sisters 
and  their  children,  but  I have  not  room  enough  for 
them  iu  my  house.  Any  Church  has  the  right  to  main- 


248 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


tain  its  distinct  denominational  existence  as  long  as  it 
stands  for  some  vital  aspect  of  Christian  truth  or  some 
important  feature  of  ecclesiastical  economy,  or  as  long 
as  its  existence  is  determined  and  required  by  external 
circumstances  of  the  need  and  binding  effect,  of  which 
it  itself  must  be  the  judge. 

“ All  movements  towards  unity  must  proceed  upon 
the  supposition  of  the  absolute  Christian  equality  of  all 
the  parties  concerned.  The  size  of  the  Church  does  not 
entitle  it  to  any  special  consideration.  The  smaller 
bodies  are  equally  to  be  consulted,  and  their  opinions 
to  have  equal  weight  according  to  their  worth.  And 
then,  if  unity  is  to  be  secured,  the  different  Churches 
must  at  once  and  forever  stop  their  maneuvering  for 
position  as  against  one  another. 

‘‘  I do  not  hesitate  to  stand  in  my  place  here  and  say 
that  when  any  Methodist  denomination  goes  into  a lit- 
tle village  in  which  there  is  already  a Methodist  Church 
of  another  denomination,  and  builds  a house  and  sends 
a pastor,  it  makes  it  absolutely  unnecessary  for  the 
devil  to  be  personally  present  in  that  village. 

“ I belong,  Mr.  President,  to  one  of  the  border  Con- 
ferences, and  I know  what  I am  speaking  about.  I do 
not  for  one  single  moment  think  that  the  Church  of 
which  I am  a member  has  been  utterly  faultless  in  this 
matter,  nor  would  I dare  to  say  that  other  Methodist 
denominations  have  been  utterly  faultless.  We  have  all 
been  wrong.  We  ought  to  stop  our  nonsense  and  our 
unchristian  conduct. 

‘‘  If,  by  and  by,  an  external  organic  unity  comes,  all 
right,  let  it  come ; but  there  is  no  immediate  prospect 
of  it,  and  if  I ever  see  it  at  all  I expect  to  see  it  from 
the  heights  of  heaven,” 


PAN-METHODISTIC  CONFERENCES  249 


The  Reverend  A.  Coke  Smith,  D.  D.,  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  South,  read  an  essay  on  “ Chris- 
tian Cooperation  ” in  which  he  said : “ Unity  is  not 
sameness,  and  the  highest  unity  in  purposes  so  far- 
reaching  as  those  of  the  Gospel  requires  the  greatest 
variety  of  endowment  and  work,  and  a mobility  in  form 
that  can  adapt  itself  to  its  ever-changing  environment, 
and  speak  in  word  and  deed  to  each  age  and  nation  in 
its  own  tongue.  . . . The  call  for  closer  union 

among  the  Churches  and  for  cooperation  in  all  Christian 
work  coming  up  from  all  directions  is  significant. 
. . . The  movement  of  the  Christian  bodies  towards 

each  other  is  not  a spurt  of  enthusiasm  or  a dream  of 
visionaries.  . . . There  is  certainly  no  purpose  to 

attempt  the  organic  unity  of  all  the  Churches.  Such 
could  only  be  in  name  and  never  in  fact.  Geography 
and  climate,  race,  temperament,  political  institutions, 
the  special  needs  of  special  times,  all  forbid  the  effort  at 
uniformity  in  government  and  forms  of  worship  did 
not  common  sense  declare  such  uniformity  unneces- 
sary. . . . The  organic  union  of  all  the  Churches 

and  the  adoption  of  like  forms  in  worship  and  govern- 
ment would  prevent  the  adjustment  of  the  Church  to  cir- 
cumstances and  hinder  the  advancement  of  the  Gospel.” 

The  Reverend  T.  J.  Ogburn,  of  the  Methodist  Protes- 
tant Church,  said : ‘‘  By  Christian  cooperation  we  do 
not  mean  the  organic  unity  of  the  Christian  Church. 
It  is  rather  the  concrete  expression  of  the  Church’s  in- 
visible but  real  spiritual  unity.  It  is  a practical  unity ; 
the  best  unity  possible  at  present,  and  the  easiest  and 
speediest  stepping-stone  to  that  ideal  organic  unity  for 
which  so  many  have  hoped  and  prayed,  as  yet  in  vain.” 

The  Reverend  E.  L,  Southgate,  of  the  Methodist 


250 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Episcopal  Charch,  South,  in  his  address,  remarked: 
“ Now  it  occurs  to  me  that  the  organic  union  so  em- 
phatically proposed  by  some  of  the  brethren  might 
prove  to  be  a merely  outward  relation.  The  true  union 
is  a union  that  is  based  upon  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
and  that  has  for  its  working  plan  the  thirteenth  chapter 
of  Paul’s  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.” 

The  Reverend  Bishop  Randolph  S.  Foster,  D.D., 
LL.  D.,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  followed  up 
these  addresses  by  remarks  urging  organic  union,  and 
especially  between  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  Among  other 
things  he  said  : “ If  organic  union  were  possible  there 
must  be  no  question,  it  seems  to  me,  in  any  mind  that 
the  power  of  this  Methodism  of  ours  would  be  tenfold 
if  it  were  possible  for  us  to  bring  ourselves  into  such 
close  relations  to  each  other  as  not  only  to  cooperate, 
but  to  organize  and  systematize  the  work  of  this  great 
Methodism  of  America,  so  that  we  should  waste  none 
of  our  force,  but,  on  the  contrary,  utilize  every  bit  of 
it  for  the  salvation  of  the  world. 

“ I do  not  know  how  soon  that  time  will  come.  I 
have  been  praying  for  it  for  twenty-five  years.  I have 
been  waiting  and  longing  for  twenty-five  years.  I rep- 
resent a great  Church — the  great  fragment  or  fraction, 
the  greatest  fraction  of  Methodism  in  America — and  I 
am  certain  that  the  sentiment  and  the  feeling  of  my 
Church  for  at  least  twenty-five  years  has  been  longing 
for  the  time  to  come  when  something  could  be  done 
that  would  harmonize  the  movements  of  these  great 
Methodist  bodies  in  the  United  States,  and  when,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  sir,  the  walls  of  separation  might  fall  and 
entirely  disappear. 


PAN-METHODISTIC  CONFERENCES  251 


“For  myself  I know  of  no  reason — I can  see  no 
reason — I am  unable  to  find  a reason — why  that  great 
and  honored  branch  of  our  Methodism,  once  united 
with  us,  once  a part  of  our  body,  dear  to  us  yet,  dear  as 
it  ever  was,  cherished  and  honored  and  loved  as  they 
were  when  it  was  corporate  with  us — I say  I can  see  no 
reason  why  these  two  great  fragments  of  a once  united 
Methodism  should  remain  longer  separate.  Others 
may  see  reasons.  I am  unable  to  find  them.  When  I 
go  before  God,  when  I consult  my  conscience,  when  I 
think  of  the  influence  that  might  arise  from  our  union, 
I can  find  no  reason  why  at  least  we  should  not  so  far 
be  eye  to  eye  as  to  come  together  like  brothers  well- 
beloved,  and  shake  each  other  by  the  hand  and  look 
each  other  in  the  eye  and  talk  to  each  other  out  of  the 
heart  and  pray  together  before  God  that  He  will  soon 
send  upon  us  wisdom,  so  that  in  some  way  the  deplored 
separation  might  be  healed,  and  that  united  together, 
we  might  take  possession,  as  we  are  able  to  do,  of  the 
North  and  of  the  South  of  this  great  land.” 

The  Pastoral  Address  of  the  Second  Ecumenical 
Methodist  Conference  had  this  to  say  on  the  question  of 
general  union  between  the  various  Methodistic  bodies : 

“We  rejoice  to  recognize  the  substantial  unity  which 
exists  among  the  various  Methodist  Churches.  Its  firm 
basis  is  a common  creed.  We  are  all  faithful  to  the 
simple.  Scriptural,  and  • generous  theology  which  God, 
through  the  clear  intellect  and  loving  heart  of  John 
Wesley,  restored  to  his  Church.  The  intellectual 
movement  and  the  social  changes  of  our  time  may  have 
led  to  some  change  in  the  form  of  expression,  or  some 
shifting  of  the  emphasis  of  our  teaching,  but  they  have 
not  led  us  even  to  reconsider  that  living  theology 


252 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


which  has  abundantly  proved  itself  upon  our  pulses. 
Indeed  it  would  be  strange  if,  while  other  Churches 
are  drawing  towards  it,  we  should  have  departed  from 
it.  And  there  are  other  grounds  of  unity.  We  are 
proud  of  the  same  spiritual  ancestry  ; we  sing  the  same 
holy  hymns ; our  modes  of  worship  are  similar ; and 
what  is  most  important  of  all,  the  type  of  religious  ex- 
perience is  fundamentally  the  same  throughout  the 
Methodist  world.  Our  ecclesiastical  principles  are  not 
so  various  as  the  forms  in  which  they  are  accidentally 
embodied.  Rejoicing  in  these  things,  we  think  that  the 
^ time  has  come  for  a closer  cooperation  of  the  Method- 
ist Churches,  both  at  home  and  abroad,  which  shall 
prevent  waste  of  power  and  unhallowed  rivalry ; while 
before  the  eyes  of  many  of  us  has  passed  the  delightful 
vision  of  a time  when,  in  each  land  where  it  is  planted, 
Methodism  shall  become,  for  every  useful  purpose,  one, 
and  the  Methodism  of  the  world  shall  be  a close  and 
powerful  federation  of  Churches  for  the  spread  of  the 
kingdom  of  Christ.” 


XXIV 


BOOKS  ON  THE  QUESTION  OF  UNION  BETWEEN 
THE  CHURCH  SOUTH  AND  THE  METHOD- 
1ST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 

S might  have  been  expected  from  the  degree  of 


general  interest  in  the  question  of  union 


X ^ between  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and,  particularly, 
from  the  special  interest  of  individuals  in  the  question, 
the  literature  on  the  subject  has  consisted  not  merely  in 
printed  addresses,  in  articles  in  various  periodicals,  and 
in  the  resolutions  and  other  formulations  of  deliberative 
and  legal  bodies,  but  also  in  the  issue  of  books  of  con- 
siderable importance  and  of  more  or  less  permanence. 

The  Reverend  Erasmus  Q.  Fuller,  D.  D.,  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  who  for  years  resided 
in  the  South,  was  the  editor  of  The  Methodist  Ad^ 
vacate  and  was  a member  of  several  General  Confer- 
ences of  his  Church.  He  wrote  a book  bearing  the  title 
‘^An  Appeal  to  the  Records:  A Vindication  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Its  Policy  and  Proceed- 
ings towards  the  South,”  which  was  published  in  1876. 
This  was  a reply  to  a work  entitled  the  “ Disruption  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,”  of  which  the 
Reverend  Edward  H.  Myers,  D.  D.,  a prominent  min- 
ister of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  for 
some  years  editor  of  the  Southern  Christian  Advocate^ 
was  the  author. 


253 


254 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


The  full  title  which  Doctor  Myers  gave  his  book  is 
“The  Disruption  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
1844-1846,  comprising  a Thirty  Years’  History  of  the 
Relations  of  the  Two  Methodisms,”  and  in  the  preface 
the  author  says : “ This  discussion  comes  opportunely 
to  the  members  of  the  Church  South,  lest  they  be 
hurried  away,  by  an  ardent  temperament  that  responds 
impulsively  to  the  proffer  of  fraternity,  from  a con- 
sideration of  those  principles  by  which  alone  they  can 
vindicate  their  past  history  and  their  permanent  separate 
organization.” 

The  point  in  this  observation  will  be  seen  when  it  is 
recalled  that  efforts  were  being  made  to  establish  fra- 
ternal relations  between  the  two  Churches  and  that  the 
meeting  of  the  two  commissions  was  soon  to  take  place 
at  Cape  May  at  which  meeting  Doctor  Myers  was  one 
of  the  representatives  from  the  Church  South. 

Doctor  Fuller  took  exceptions  to  the  very  title  of 
Doctor  Myers’  book  as  containing  “ erroneous  assump- 
tions.” Among  these  errors  Doctor  Fuller  says  : “ The 
first  is  in  the  words,  ‘ Disruption  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,’  as  it  is  claimed  in  the  work,  by  a full, 
distinct,  purposed,  and  binding  ‘contract,’  into  two 
parts  of  the  one  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  equally 
the  legitimate  and  legal  representatives  of  the  original 
body.  This  position  of  the  author  is  not  true  ; there- 
fore this  portion  of  the  title  of  his  book,  as  explained 
by  himself,  contains  a false  assumption.  The  second  is 
in  the  words,  ‘ The  Two  Methodisms.’  This  term  is 
used  by  Doctor  Myers  to  show  that  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  are  equally  the  representatives  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  which  once  was,  but  which  does  not 


BOOKS  ON  UNION 


255 


now  exist,  it  having  been  ‘ disrupted  ’ into  these  two 
branches — which  is  not  true,  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  the  original  body  from  which  the  Southern 
Church  separated,  now  exists  in  name,  and  in  fact,  in 
entirety,  having  never  been  ^ disrupted  ’ in  such 
manner.’’ 

In  referring  to  the  work  of  Doctor  Fuller,  Dr.  D.  D. 
Whedon,  editor  of  the  Methodist  Qumterly  Beview^ 
remarks  that  “Doctor  Fuller  has  here  given  Doctor 
Myers’  book  a very  thorough  and  annihilating  analysis.” 

About  ten  years  after  the  publication  of  the  books 
of  Doctor  Myers  and  Doctor  Fuller  a Southern  preacher 
lifted  up  his  voice  and  used  his  pen  in  the  interest  of 
union  between  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

He  was  the  Keverend  John  H.  Brunner,  D.  D.,  a 
minister  of  the  Church  South,  and  a man  of  prominence 
in  his  denomination  and  his  section,  as  will  appear  from 
the  positions  which  he  held.  Among  other  things  he 
was  the  President  of  Hiwassee  College,  in  East  Ten- 
nessee, and  a writer  of  some  note. 

Doctor  Brunner  favored  a union  of  some  kind  be- 
tween his  denomination  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  but  seems  to  have  been  in  advance  of  his 
Church  of  that  day  on  this  subject. 

From  time  to  time  he  published  articles  in  favor  of 
union  in  the  Church  papers  and  later  published  a book 
entitled  “ The  Union  of  the  Churches  ” in  which  he  in- 
corporated many  of  the  articles  which  he  had  written 
for  the  periodicals. 

The  general  character  of  the  work  was  an  urgent 
plea  for  such  a union,  the  necessity  for  which  he  based 
on  various  grounds. 


256 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


In  this  work  he  quotes  Southern  men  who  were  in 
favor  of  union.  Thus  he  cites  the  Reverend  John  H. 
Parrott  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  as 
saying  : “ The  two  great  bodies  of  Episcopal  Methodism 
in  our  own  country  ought  to  be  united  on  some  basis.” 
This  was  in  an  article  which  was  printed  in  the  Knox- 
ville Journal^  of  January  4,  1886. 

Referring  to  the  action  of  the  1874  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
which  declared  that  “the  reasons  for  the  separate 
existence  of  these  two  branches  of  Methodism  are  such 
as  to  make  a corporate  union  undesirable  and  im- 
practicable,” Doctor  Brunner  remarks : 

“This  then  is  the  avowed  policy  of  the  Southern 
Methodist  Church  ; the  policy  of  the  Northern  Church 
being  directly  the  opposite.  On  these  two  opposing 
lines  the  forces  of  the  two  Methodisms  are  now  ar- 
rayed ! 

“ Really,  it  is  much  like  the  Confederate  War.  The 
great  preponderance  of  men  and  money  is  with  the 
North.  The  sentiment  of  the  world  is  on  that  side, 
as  well  as  the  patriotic  sentiment  of  the  country, 
among  outsiders  and  other  religionists.  Then  there  is 
a ‘union  sentiment’  inside  the  Southern  Church,  as 
there  was  inside  the  Confederacy — a constantly  grow- 
ing force.  Add  to  all  this  ‘ the  army  of  occupation  ’ — 
the  Northern  network  of  conferences,  districts,  circuits, 
stations,  schools,  Sunday-schools,  families — a member- 
ship reaching  nearly  up  to  that  of  the  Southern  Church 
in  many  places ! . . . 

“ Yes,  the  Northern  Church  is  here,  and  constantly 
adding  to  her  resources.  The  Southern  Church  is  cir- 
cumscribed— dwarfed  and  segregative  or  exclusive,  with 


BOOKS  ON  UNION 


257 


accelerating  defections  to  the  union  side  ! — as  doomed 
to  succumb  as  was  the  Confederacy  after  the  battle  of 
Gettysburg ! The  old  bosses  are  as  fixed  in  their  pur- 
pose as  was  Jeff  Davis,  despite  the  advice  of  Alex. 
Stephens.  . . . 

“ The  Northern  Methodists  erred  in  1848  in  rejecting 
fraternity,  and  in  voting  in  the  face  of  universal  senti- 
ment on  the  solemn  league  known  as  the  Plan  of  Sep- 
aration— and  bitter  has  been  the  penalty ; and  now 
Southern  Methodism  errs  by  spurning  proffers  of  union, 
thus  offending  universal  public  sentiment.  Northern 
Methodism  had  the  good  fortune  to  see  her  mistake, 
and  the  grace  to  undo  it  by  act  and  by  declaration  in 
the  Cape  May  Commission  settlement.  Will  the  South- 
ern Church  be  equally  fortunate  and  wise  in  abandon- 
ing its  untenable  ground  ? . . . 

“ Hard  sayings  and  hard  doings  among  Methodists 
are  not  in  place,  and  never  have  been.  But  some  pal- 
liation may  be  found  in  the  case  of  our  Northern  Meth- 
odist friends.  Did  they  not  come  down,  some  300,000 
strong,  in  1861-65  ? Did  they  not  find  the  Southern 
Methodists  arrayed  against  the  government — some  at 
home  praying  for  Jeff  Davis,  and  others  in  arms  firing 
upon  the  flag  and  the  hoys  in  blue  f There  may  have 
been  exceptions — and  there  were — ^few  and  far  be- 
tween' Overzealous  our  Northern  brethren  may  have 
been  to  teach  the  negroes  (and  preach  to  them  in  their 
alienation  from  Southern  Methodism)  and  to  help  efface 
the  fearful  illiteracy  in  the  Southern  States.  But  they 
met  no  aid  and  comfort  from  Southern  Methodists  ; but 
instead,  the  most  unrelenting  opposition ! Faults  there 
be ; but  they  are  not  all  within  the  pale  of  any  one 
Church,  any  more  than  all  fools  belong  to  any  one  po- 


258 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


litical  party ! There  are  two  sides  to  every  silver  six- 
pence ; and  there  are  two  sides  to  the  question  of  the 
Southern  work  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
The  Southern  Methodism  lost  its  hold  on  negro  confi- 
dence and  of  other  confidence  as  well.  The  union  of 
the  two  Methodisms  would  give  the  united  Methodism 
access  to  all  again.  . . . 

“ A political  party,  that  is  coterminous  with  the  na- 
tion, acts  as  a balance  wheel  in  the  machinery  of  gov- 
ernment. But  sectional  parties  worh  mischief.  The 
seclusive  policy  of  Southern  Methodism  is  fatal  to  its 
perpetuity.  Its  great  need  is  union  and  diffusion,  or 
expansion.” 

These  were  strong  words  from  a minister  of  the 
Church  South  who  had  been  infiuenced  by  Southern  in- 
terpretations and  who  dwelt  in  a Southern  environ- 
ment. 

In  1892  the  Reverend  W.  P.  Harrison,  D.  D.,  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  wrote  and  pub- 
lished a book  entitled  ‘‘  Methodist  Union.” 

Doctor  Harrison  in  his  work  opposed  the  organic 
union  of  his  own  Church  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  for  this  opposition  he  gives  several  reasons, 
which  may  be  briefly  phrased  as  follows : 

First,  the  union  would  make  a very  large  ecclesias- 
tical body. 

Second,  the  danger  in  such  a large  body  of  partisan 
politics. 

Third,  the  representative  body  would  either  be  of 
unwieldy  proportions,  or  the  ratio  of  representation 
would  be  put  at  such  a figure  that  the  representation 
would  not  be  fairly  representative. 

Fourth,  that  the  geographical  sections  of  the  two 


BOOKS  ON  UNION 


259 


Churches  are  so  different  that  the  individuals,  when 
brought  together  in  one  body,  would  not  agree  among 
themselves  because  of  these  sectional  influences. 

Fifth,  that  the  Church  South  is  nearly  as  unanimous 
at  the  present  time  as  it  was  in  1844,  while  it  is  also 
prosperous  and  contented  and  simply  desires  to  be  let 
alone. 

While  Doctor  Harrison  rejects  organic  unity,  he 
closes  his  book  with  this  alternative  suggestion : 

“ Speaking  as  an  individual,  the  writer  would  prefer 
to  see  four  grand  divisions  of  Episcopal  Methodism  in 
America,  the  Eastern,  Southern,  Western,  and  the  Col- 
ored General  Conferences,  the  whole  Church  bound  to- 
gether by  an  advisory  Council,  representing  Conference 
districts,  and  limited  to  the  discussion  of  interests  com- 
mon to  all,  without  authority  over  any.  Such  federa- 
tion we  believe  to  be  feasible  and  desirable.” 

Further  he  says : “For  the  present,  and  as  far  into 
the  future  as  it  has  been  given  us  to  see,  the  interests 
and  welfare  of  our  Southern  Methodism  imperatively 
demand  the  jurisdictional  independence  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South. 

“ The  subject  of  organic  union  of  all  the  Episcopal 
Methodist  bodies  possesses  a charm  for  many  persons. 
But  there  are  so  many  difficulties  in  the  way  of  such  a 
consummation  that  it  is  useless  to  discuss  the  question 
in  any  proposition  that  looks  to  the  absorption  of  ec- 
clesiastical government  under  one  General  Conference 
jurisdiction.” 

Then  he  adds  : “ There  is,  however,  a more  excellent 
way,”  and  gives  in  detail  his  plan  for  a number  of  geo- 
graphical divisions  and  a “ Council  ” which  would  “ have 
no  legislative  or  judicial  functions,  but  to  be  an  advisory 


260 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


body  only,”  as  he  had  previously  said,  “ without  au- 
thority over  any.” 

This  seemed  to  be  the  Southern  idea  of  union  in  that 
day. 

In  the  same  year.  Bishop  Stephen  M.  Merrill,  D.  D., 
LL.  D.,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  brought 
out  his  book  on  “ Organic  Union.” 

Bishop  Merrill  occupied  a position  of  peculiar  fitness 
for  the  preparation  of  such  a work  and  his  early  expe- 
riences formed  a background  from  which  his  expres- 
sions on  the  subject  of  union  came  with  a peculiar  force. 
As  he  tells  us  in  his  “ Introductory  ” written  in  Decem- 
ber, 1891  : 

“ He  entered  the  ministry  the  year  the  division  of 
the  Church  occurred,  and  through  a door  indirectly 
opened  as  the  result  of  division,  and  afterwards  spent 
some  years  on  the  debated  ground,  often  coming  in 
contact  with  the  bitterest  feelings  engendered  in  the 
strife  on  the  border;  so  that  his  recollections  of  the 
old  debates  are  vivid,  and  sometimes  sad.  In  his  min- 
istry in  the  times  of  slavery  he  has  met  organized  mobs 
in  his  congregations ; has  been  arraigned  before  mass- 
meetings  of  regulators,  with  a view  to  his  expulsion 
from  the  state ; has  been  presented  to  the  grand  jury 
for  indictment  under  special  legislation  designed  to  send 
him  to  the  State’s  Prison ; has  been  threatened  with 
bludgeons,  tar-buckets,  and  bullets ; and,  therefore,  he 
does  not  forget  the  former  days,  when  to  represent  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  on  Southern  soil  was  at 
once  a peril  and  an  honor.  After  all,  he  bears  no  ill- 
feeling  towards  Southern  people  or  Churches,  but 
wishes  and  prays,  not  only  for  fraternity,  but  also  for 
ultimate  organic  union.” 


BOOKS  ON  UNION 


261 


This  reveals  the  conditions  of  antagonism  that  existed 
over  the  slave  border  when  in  those  times  property, 
person,  and  life  itself  were  in  peril  in  the  land  of  free 
speech  and  of  free  Churches,  when  Methodist  Episcopal 
ministers  preached  to  their  own  congregations  within 
the  bounds  of  their  own  Conferences,  and,  yet,  this 
author  who  went  through  all  this  and  on  up  to  the 
episcopate  has  “ no  ill-feeling  towards  Southern  people 
or  Churches,  but  wishes  and  prays,  not  only  for  fra- 
ternity, but  also  for  ultimate  organic  union.” 

His  views  in  favor  of  “ultimate  organic  union”  are  not 
an  impulse  of  a late  moment.  He  tells  the  reader  that 
“ He  is  not  a recent  convert  to  the  views  he  now  holds,” 
and  that  “ What  he  believes  to-day  he  has  believed  for 
more  than  a score  of  years,  and  his  convictions  have 
grown  with  advancing  life.” 

Defining  the  issue,  he  says,  “ By  the  union  of  Meth- 
odist Churches  is  meant  the  consolidation  of  all  the 
denominations  of  Methodism  in  the  United  States  in 
one  governmental  jurisdiction  ” ; but  the  chief  purpose 
of  the  author  is*  “ to  study  the  question  of  reunion  in 
relation  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.” 

In  reference  to  this  question  Bishop  Merrill  says: 
“ There  is  little  probability  that  organic  union  with  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  will  ever  be  con- 
summated without  a pretty  thorough  sifting  of  the 
old  issues.”  This  he  thinks  is  necessary  because  in 
the  Church  South  there  has  been  generally  a mis- 
interpretation of  the  historic  facts  in  regard  to  the 
cause  of  the  separation  by  the  Southern  Conferences 
in  1845  and  a misunderstanding  of  the  action  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1844  and  also  a failure  to 


262 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


appreciate  the  decisions  of  the  General  Conference 
of  1848. 

As  to  the  assertion  that  slavery  was  not  the  “ cause  ” 
but  only  the  “ occasion  ” of  the  division  of  the  Church, 
Bishop  Merrill  maintains  that : “ Slavery,  by  its  arro- 
gance, rendered  the  agitation  unavoidable.  Slavery 
was  therefore  both  the  ‘cause’  and  the  ‘occasion’  of 
the  division,”  that  “ slavery  was  the  ‘ cause,’  and  that 
the  action  of  the  General  Conference  in  the  case  of 
Bishop  Andrew  was  the  ‘ occasion  ’ of  that  sad  event.” 

Referring  to  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  of 
1844,  the  author  says:  “The  famous  so-called  ‘Plan 
of  Separation  ’ was  not  a ‘ plan  of  separation  ’ at  all.  It 
had  no  such  purpose.  . . . The  General  Confer- 

ence of  1844  neither  divided  the  Church,  nor  author- 
ized its  division.  ...  It  did  not  induce  that  act, 
nor  authorize  it,  nor  approve  it ; but  anticipated  it,  and 
sought  to  provide  against  avoidable  evils.”  But  “ the 
conditions  were  not  met,  and  it  never  was  lawfully 
carried  into  effect,”  while  “ The  decision  of  the  court 
(on  the  Book  Concern)  was  reached  after  the  consum- 
mation of  the  division,  and  largely  on  the  ground  of 
equity,  which  was  scarcely  disputed.” 

As  to  a “ line  ” Bishop  Merrill  holds  that  the  Church 
South  “ has  gone  outside  of  the  limits  originally  im- 
posed upon  herself,”  and  “that  after  fixing  the  line 
that  was  supposed  to  restrict  their  labors  to  the  slave- 
holding states,  our  Southern  brethren  did  not  keep 
themselves  to  their  own  side  of  the  line.” 

Notwithstanding  all  these  things  and  differences  of 
opinion  on  the  two  sides,  the  author  insists  that  union 
is  possible  and  that  efforts  should  be  made  to  bring  it 
about.  He  says : “ With  the  great  mass  of  the  mem- 


BOOKS  ON  UNION 


263 


bei’ship  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  there  is 
scarcely  any  consciousness  of  alienation.  . . . Not 

one  in  a thousand  has  the  slightest  prejudice  to  over- 
come in  according  to  the  members  of  the  Southern 
Church  the  fullest  recognition  and  fellowship.  When 
their  attention  is  called  to  it,  they  simply  wonder  why 
there  is  a Southern  Church.  It  can  be  assumed,  there- 
fore, that  our  people  are  ready  for  the  reunion  when- 
ever it  shall  be  brought  about ; and  it  is  equally  true 
that  they  are  not  fretted  because  of  the  delay.”  . . . 

“ As  the  difficulties  to  be  overcome  are  neither  few  nor 
small  the  warmest  friends  of  the  movement  will  be 
the  most  patient.  No  one  will  look  for  the  consum- 
mation in  a brief  space  of  time.  If  it  be  accom- 
plished within  a generation,  it  may  be  accepted  as 
an  achievement  of  wise  diplomacy  and  royal  states- 
manship, sustained  by  the  noblest  devotion  to  a cause 
which  concerns  the  glory  of  God  and  the  welfare  of 
His  kingdom.” 

As  to  the  conditions  of  union  he  says : “ All  agree 
that  if  union  comes  it  must  be  reached  upon  a basis 
honorable  to  all,  and  as  the  result  of  an  inward  per- 
suasion which  is  so  nearly  universal  as  to  be  posi- 
tively domination.  Every  one  will  concede  that  the 
movement,  in  order  to  be  either  desirable  or  successful, 
must  be  as  nearly  spontaneous  as  is  possible— the  out- 
going of  a conviction  rooted  in  Christian  sentiment 
and  controlling  the  consciousness  of  duty.  When  such 
preparation  comes,  union  will  follow  as  naturally  as 
ripened  fruit  drops  to  the  earth.” 

The  period  of  a generation  which  Bishop  Merrill 
suggested  has  expired,  and  he  himself  has  passed  away, 
and  yet  the  organic  union  has  not  come  and  the  condi- 


264: 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


tions  he  indicated  have  not  fully  ripened,  but  this  does 
not  prove  that  the  process  is  not  going  on. 

In  the  same  year,  1892,  Bishop  Randolph  S.  Foster, 
D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  wrote 
and  published  his  book  on  “ Union  of  Episcopal  Meth- 
odisms.”  He  appears  not  to  have  known  of  the  pur- 
pose of  Doctor  Harrison  and  Bishop  Merrill  to  write 
on  this  subject,  and  his  work  was  written  before  their 
books  appeared,  and  so  he  notes : “ Since  writing  the 
preceding  pages  (the  body  of  his  book)  Bishop  Merrill’s 
book  on  ‘Organic  Union’  and  Doctor  Harrison’s  book 
on  ‘ Methodist  Union  ’ have  appeared.” 

Bishop  Merrill,  while  he  wrote  particularly  of  the 
union  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  had  in  his  treatment 
“ The  Organic  Union  of  American  Methodism  ” cover- 
ing all  the  Methodistic  bodies  in  the  United  States,  but 
Bishop  Foster  limits  himself  to  the  “Union  of  Episco- 
pal Methodisms,”  and  further  restricts  himself  to  the 
question  of  organic  union  between  two  of  the  Episcopal 
Methodisms,  namely,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  though  he 
has  observations  on  the  “Consolidation  of  sects”  in 
general. 

In  his  Introduction,  Bishop  Foster  says : 

“ With  respect  to  the  practicability  of  the  union  of 
these  two  bodies,  and  with  respect  to  the  proper  way 
of  approaching  it,  and  the  necessary  preliminary  steps, 
there  is  room  for  difference  of  judgment  and  a demand 
for  the  exercise  of  patience  and  forbearance.  . . . 

Patience,  not  haste — candor,  not  harshness — simplicity 
of  aim,  will  lead  us  to  the  true  goal,  whether  it  be  or 
not  be  the  one  we  aim  at.” 


BOOKS  ON  UNION 


265 


In  regard  to  the  question  of  organic  unity,  he  says : 
“ There  are  three  possible  views : first,  that  organic 
unity  is  impracticable,  and  therefore  they  should  re- 
main as  they  are ; second,  that  some  adjustment  other 
than  that  which  at  present  exists  should  be  sought,  but 
not  organic  unity ; third,  that  the  two  bodies  should 
unite  and  become  one.’’ 

The  reasons  for  the  several  views  he  considers  and 
presents  in  detail.  Among  other  things  he  observes 
that : “ The  idea  has  been  several  times  mooted  of  hav- 
ing two  or  three  Episcopal  white  Methodisms  on 
American  soil,  each  assigned  a geographical  division 
of  the  country — one  eastern,  one  western,  one  southern 
— the  three  sustaining  federated  relations  similar  to 
those  of  the  states  in  the  federal  Union.” 

This,  though  plausible,  he  rejects  absolutely,  and 
says  that,  though  “simple  in  appearance,  it  involves 
such  complexities  as  to  make  it  unworkable,  or,  if 
workable,  beset  with  manifold  difficulties.  What  hope 
is  there  that  the  sections  could  be  induced  thus  to  go 
asunder?  . . . There  is  no  probability  that  any 

such  scheme  wfill  ever  be  adopted  or  even  gravely  en- 
tertained.” 

Then  he  gives  various  reasons  in  favor  of  the  third 
view,  namely,  the  uniting  of  the  two  bodies  into  one, 
and  finally  brings  the  reader  “ face  to  face  with  a re- 
maining perplexity,  namely,  how  to  effect  the  union.” 
Here  “ arise  many  questions  and  phases  of  difficulty,” 
and  to  meet  these  he  favors  a commission  to  be  created 
by  each  of  the  two  General  Conferences  “ to  prepare  a 
platform  of  union  ” to  be  duly  submitted. 

In  his  work  Bishop  Foster  raises  the  questions: 
“ What  should  be  the  relations  of  the  white  Method- 


266 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


isms  to  the  colored  Methodisms  ? and  along  with  it, 
What  should  be  the  relations  of  the  colored  members 
of  our  Methodism  to  the  united  colored  Episcopal 
Methodism  ? ” 

Answering  his  own  question  he  says : ‘‘  If  it  may  be 
for  the  reason  that  organic  unity,  all  things  considered, 
would  not  be  for  the  best,  then  it  may  not  only  not  be 
a sin  to  remain  separate,  but  it  would  be  a wrong  to 
effect  union  if  it  were  possible.” 

As  to  the  relations  of  the  white  Episcopal  Method- 
isms to  the  united  colored  Episcopal  Methodisms  if  it 
should  come  to  be  an  actualized  fact,  he  says : “ The 
two  bodies  should  remain  separate  under  existing  facts, 
or  that,  whatever  may  be  wise  for  the  future,  the  time 
has  not  come  for  organic  unity,  if  it  shall  ever  come.” 

Again  he  says : We  proceed  on  the  theory  of  a 
union  of  all  the  colored  Episcopal  Methodisms  in  one 
great  organism.”  . . . “ Organic  unity  with  the  col- 

ored Episcopal  Methodisms  is  a question  not  even  to  be 
mooted,  and  in  fact  is  not  mooted,”  and  so  Bishop 
Foster  favored  the  combination  of  all  Colored  Episco- 
pal Methodists,  including  those  who  were  in  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  into  a united  and  separate 
body,  thus  making  a White  Episcopal  Methodism  and 
a Colored  Episcopal  Methodism,  independent  of  each 
other. 


XXV 

FEATEENAL  ADDEESSES  OX  UNION 


IN  the  General  Conferences  of  both  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  from  1874  and  1876  there  have 
been  fraternal  addresses  by  representatives  from  both 
denominations  and  in  these  addresses  there  have  been 
allusions  not  only  to  fraternity  between  the  two 
Churches  but  also  references  more  or  less  direct  to  the 
question  of  organic  unity. 

In  1882  there  appeared  before  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in 
Nashville,  Tennessee,  a fraternal  delegate  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  who  had  been  born  on 
slave  soil  and  who  was  for  years  in  close  contact  with 
preachers  and  people  of  the  Church  South.  He  was 
the  scholarly  and  eloquent  Henry  Bascom  Kidgaway, 
D.  D.,  named  after  Doctor  Bascom,  who  became  a 
bishop  of  the  Church  South.  Doctor  Kidgaway  be- 
cause of  his  early  environments  and  his  high  standing 
in  his  own  Church  was  peculiarly  well  fitted  to  voice 
the  fraternal  feelings  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

It  was  on  the  tenth  day  of  May,  1882,  that  he  deliv- 
ered his  address  to  the  Church  South  General  Confer- 
ence. We  present  some  extracts  from  that  noted  ad- 
dress. He  said : 

“ I was  born  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  just 

267 


268 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


before  the  division  of  1841-184:5  which  separated  it 
into  two  great  families.  Nurtured  in  that  cradle  of 
Methodism,  Baltimore  City,  equipped  for  the  ministry 
in  the  old  historic  Conference  of  which  that  city  is  the 
center,  I was  accustomed  from  childhood  to  hear  the 
traditions  of  the  worthy  founders  of  the  Church  in  the 
South,  as  well  as  in  the  North  and  West.  The  names 
of  some  of  the  devout,  self-denying,  and  mighty  men 
who  planted  Methodism  in  your  fair  land  were  as  fa- 
miliar as  household  words.  Such  was  the  power  and 
popularity  of  one  of  these  that  my  father,  a plain 
farmer  on  the  eastern  shore  of  Maryland,  after  listen- 
ing to  his  transcendant  eloquence,  went  home  and 
changed  the  name  of  his  infant  son  from  John  Wesley 
to  Henry  Bascom.  There  may  be  nothing  in  a name. 
But  I can  say  from  personal  recollections  that  the  first 
thoughts  of  preaching  the  Gospel  were  awakened  in 
that  lad’s  mind  when,  as  he  was  nearing  his  teens, 
godly  men  put  their  hands  on  his  head  and  said  : ‘ If 
he  only  makes  as  good  and  great  a man  as  Mr.  Bascom.’ 
The  Church  could  produce  but  one  Doctor  Bascom  in 
the  remarkable  mental  qualities  with  which  nature  had 
endowed  him  ; but  in  spiritual  grace  God  calls  all  to 
the  highest  attainments.  The  dream  that  was  started, 
that  somehow  there  was  an  obligation  put  upon  me  to 
be  something,  I very  naturally  conceived  would  receive 
its  truest  realization  in  the  vocation  of  him  whose 
name  I bore.  . . . 

“ Then,  too,  after  the  division,  as  a boy  preacher  on 
the  border,  in  Virginia,  I fought  you.  That  is,  I de- 
fended my  Church  by  doing  the  work  of  an  evangelist 
and  building  it  up,  all  the  harder,  because  the  Southern 
preachers  were  around.  I thought  and  felt  then  that 


FRATERNAL  ADDRESSES 


269 


these  Southern  brethren  were  splendid  fellows,  and 
how  I would  love  them  if  they  would  only  keep  on 
their  own  side  and  let  my  territory  and  people  alone  ; 
and  I could  see  the  need  of  but  one  Methodism,  espe- 
cially as  fat  and  flourishing  as  it  was  in  the  regions  of 
the  Shenandoah  and  old  Loudoun. 

“ Ah,  sir,  those  days  were  but  as  the  innocent  and 
harmless  encounter  of  boys  playing  at  fighting,  com- 
pared with  the  dark  and  stormy  days  which,  alas  ! too 
soon  came  upon  us.  The  war-cloud  passed  over  us, 
with  its  battles  of  fire  and  hail,  sweeping  down  in  its 
terrible  course  hundreds  and  thousands  of  the  vigorous 
men  and  valiant  youths  of  both  sections  of  our  common 
country.  In  the  strife  the  Methodists,  North  and  South, 
East  and  West,  true  to  the  instinctive  earnestness  char- 
acteristic of  their  religion,  did  their  utmost  in  deadly 
array.  With  tongue,  and  pen,  and  sword  on  either  side, 
they  contested  every  inch  of  ground  and  every  title  of 
principle  and  law.  But  the  war  over,  the  bow  of  peace 
once  again  spanned  the  dark  cloud  as  it  receded. 

“ Happily  for  us,  the  brave  men  that  fell  in  blood 
were  not  all  that  fell — slavery,  the  source  of  our  dis- 
cord, also  fell  and  was  buried ; and  not  only  5,000,000 
of  slaves  rose  into  liberty,  but  the  nation,  and  no  por- 
tion of  it  more  than  the  Southern,  rose  into  freedom 
and  was  delivered  from  the  most  difficult  social,  moral, 
and  political  problem  which  ever  perplexed  statesmen 
or  burdened  the  consciences  of  good  men. 

“ From  the  hour  when  national  peace  was  established 
and  the  broad  and  equal  guardianship  of  the  Union  was 
again  thrown  over  all  the  states  and  territories  of  our 
country,  there  has  been  a growing  desire  among  Meth- 
odists North  and  South  that  the  old  bonds  of  a former 


270 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


love  and  amity  should  he  reasserted.  There  has  been  an 
effort  to  forgive  and  to  forget  the  differences  of  the 
past,  and  indeed  to  overlook  as  far  as  possible  the  things 
in  which  we  yet  differ,  and  to  draw  closer  together  on 
the  ground  in  which  we  agree,  and  where  we  can  stand 
and  act  as  brethren.  I need  not  rehearse  the  successive 
steps  by  which  we  have  been  approaching  each  other. 
The  fraternal  salutations  exchanged  through  official 
representatives  in  both  our  General  Conferences;  the 
devout,  spiritual  reunions  at  Round  Lake  and  other 
camp-meetings ; the  legal  settlement  of  the  Cape  May 
Commission,  duly  ratified  by  our  General  Conference  at 
Cincinnati ; and,  finally,  the  moral  influence  of  the 
grand  Ecumenical  Council  in  London  ; these,  the  more 
marked  and  formal  agencies,  to  say  nothing  of  the  less 
conspicuous  and  silent,  but  not  the  less  efficient,  proc- 
esses of  individual,  social,  and  commercial  intercourse, 
have  been  carrying  forward  the  work  of  healing  and 
reconciliation,  until  we  feel  that  we  are  very  near  to 
each  other,  and  that  there  are  more  things  in  which  we 
agree  than  those  in  which  we  differ^  and  that  those 
things  in  which  we  agree  are  far  more  important  than 
those  in  which  we  differ.  . . . 

“As  I stand  before  you  with  a message  of  love  and 
peace,  I am  bound  to  rejoice  with  you  in  the  rich  herit- 
age which  you  possess  in  common  with  ourselves  as 
Episcopal  Methodists.  Our  genesis  is  the  same. 
‘ Whose  are  the  fathers  ? ’ The  memory  of  the  men 
who  founded  Methodism  in  the  New  World  is  yours  as 
ours.  Their  work  is  at  the  foundation  and  in  the  super- 
structure of  your  Church  ; their  history  is  in  your 
books ; they  live  in  your  hearts.  Like  the  odor  of 
sweet  ointment  poured  forth,  their  names  everywhere 


FRATERNAL  ADDRESSES 


271 


penetrate  the  atmosphere  North,  South,  East,  and  West, 
and  the  perfume  that  they  exhale  cannot  be  confined  to 
any  section  of  the  country  or  branch  of  their  suc- 
cessors. . . . 

“ Mr.  Chairman,  as  I talk  on  and  feel  the  memories 
of  our  primitive  past  stealing  upon  me  and  think  of  the 
days  when  we  were  all  one  ; as  I feel  the  memories  of 
this  later  charity  which,  like  the  rising  tide,  is  sweejping 
in  upon  us,  I not  only  rejoice  in  fraternization,  true  and 
heartfelt,  which  we  this  day  realize,  as  in  the  name  of 
bishops,  16,000  ministers,  travelling  and  local,  well-nigh 
2,000,000  members  and  1,500,000  children  and  youth,  I 
shall  shake  hands  with  you  and  the  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands who  stand  around  you,  but  I devoutly  pray  that 
we  may  he  drawn  yet  closer  and  closer  together,  until 
differences  shall  vcmish  in  the  beautiful  oneness  of 
Americcm  Methodism. 

“ There  is  a word  I would  like  to  speak,  but  perhaps 
I dare  not.  My  Church  has  not  authorized  me  to  speak 
it.  You,  my  hosts,  may  not  be  ready  for  it,  and  I 
must  not  violate  your  hospitality.  It  is  not  a big 
word,  nor  a long  one,  but  my  heart  is  full  of  it.  Time 
will  bring  it.  There  are  some  things  which  cannot 
well  be  hurried,  and  this  is  one  of  them.  But  this 
question  of  the  Organic  Union  of  Episcopal  Methodism, 
to  say  nothing  of  other  forms  of  Methodism  on  our 
continent,  is  one  which  some  men  are  thinking  about 
and  strongly  desiring.  There  are  some  subjects,  says 
Goethe,  which,  though  they  are  not  definitely  formu- 
lated, do  yet,  like  the  sound  of  bells,  get  all  abroad  on 
the  air.  A layman  octogenarian,  away  down  in  Maine, 
born,  by  the  way,  in  the  same  township  as  your  vener- 
ated Bishop  Soule,  wrote  me  a short  time  since,  ‘ We 


272 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


want  here  organic  union.’  Another  octogenarian,  a 
layman  of  Cincinnati,  eminent  for  his  intelligence,  and 
piety,  and  liberality,  said  to  me  just  before  I left  home, 
‘We  want  it ; there  is  no  reason  why  it  should  not  be.’ 
These  old  men  may  be  too  far  ahead  of  their  times. 
But  like  God’s  great  seers  standing  on  the  mountain 
peaks  which  kiss  the  skies,  they  catch  the  very  first 
streaks  of  the  dawning  new  light  which  is  rising,  and 
destined  to  shine  athwart  our  whole  Church,  North, 
South,  East,  and  West. 

“ If  reunion  is  right  and  for  the  glory  of  God,  it  will 
come ; if  not,  may  Heaven  put  it  forever  away ! For 
my  own  part,  I dare  not  oppose,  I cannot  be  indifferent 
to  it ; / must  'pray  and  hope  for  its  consummation^  be- 
cause I believe  it  will  be  for  the  glory  of  God,  the  good 
of  the  whole  people,  and  the  stability  of  our  Republic. 

“ There  is  no  bond  like  the  religious  bond  to  cement 
and  compact  the  communities  of  a country  into  solid 
strength.  But  I am  willing  to  wait  God’s  time. 
When  I was  a little  boy  I often  tried  to  knock  apples 
from  the  trees  before  they  were  ripe ; but  as  I grew 
older  I found  after  they  were  ripe  they  would  either 
fall  of  themselves,  or  needed  only  a gentle  shake. 

“We  need  a little  more  love.  We  need  baptism 
after  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  the  fire  that  melts,  dissolves 
the  souls  of  the  people  into  one  free-moving  stream  of 
love.  . . . May  God  speed  the  day  ! ” 

This  eloquent  and  pathetic  pleading  for  organic 
union  is  a good  specimen  of  the  thought  and  feeling  in 
the  addresses  of  the  fraternal  delegates  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  through  a period  of  over 
forty  years,  and,  though  organic  unity  has  not  come 
within  that  time,  the  feeling  is  likely  to  continue. 


FRATERNAL  ADDRESSES 


273 


Two  years  later  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  met,  and  to  this  Con- 
ference of  1884  came  fraternal  delegates  from  the 
Church  South.  The  Reverend  Charles  W.  Carter  came 
with  friendly  greetings  but  in  his  address  there  was  no 
proffer  or  suggestion  of  organic  union.  The  other 
delegate,  the  Honorable  A.  H.  Colquitt,  brought  a 
message  of  love  and  peace,  but  his  address  contained 
no  proposal  of  organic  unity.  So  the  expressions  of 
Doctor  Ridgaway  in  1882  were  not  reciprocated  in  the 
return  addresses  though  their  spirit  was  most  brotherly. 

At  the  General  Conference  of  1888,  the  Reverend 
Samuel  A.  Steel,  D.  D.,  represented  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South.  His  address  breathed  a 
loyal  American  spirit,  and  urged  practical  fraternity 
and  harmony  between  the  two  Churches,  but  there  was 
no  plea  for  organic  unity. 

The  fraternal  delegate  from  the  Church  South  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  General  Conference  in  1892  was 
the  Reverend  Dr.  J.  J.  Tigert,  afterwards  made  a 
bishop.  He  bore  the  fraternal  salutations  of  his 
Church  and  stood  for  fraternity,  but  nothing  beyond 
that.  He  spoke  of  constitutional  differences  between 
the  two  Churches,  in  which  he  referred  to  the  Col- 
lege of  Bishops  as  a coordinate  body  with  a limited 
veto  power  over  legislation,  denied  the  power  of  a 
General  Conference  to  finally  ‘‘judge  of  the  con- 
stitutionality of  its  own  acts,”  and  maintained  that  the 
power  to  finally  interpret  the  Constitution  and  that 
which  is  constitutional  “ belongs  alone  to  the  Annual 
Conferences.”  He  said : “ Our  Churches,  Mr.  President, 
are  not  only  twins ; they  are  Siamese  twins.  . . . 

There  is  a free  circulation  of  warm  heart’s  blood  be- 


274 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


tween  the  two  bodies — distinct  yet  united.”  “Our 
two  Methodisms,  Mr.  President,  are  like  the  two  olive 
trees  and  the  two  candlesticks  of  apocalyptic  vision, 
which  stand  before  the  Lord  of  the  earth.  They  are 
fruit-bearing  and  light-giving.” 

With  him  they  are  always  two  and  distinct  and 
there  is  no  suggestion  of  organic  union. 

In  the  General  Conference  of  1896  there  appeared  as 
fraternal  representatives  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  the  Reverend  Dr.  J.  C.  Morris  and  the 
Honorable  G.  B.  Perkins.  They  both  brought  the 
fraternal  greetings  of  their  denomination. 

Doctor  Morris  said : “We  are  brethren,  having  a 
common  parentage,  a common  name,  one  symbol  of 
faith,  and  we  are  seeking  to  do  the  same  work  in  the 
world,”  and  “ these  two  branches  of  Methodism,  though 
‘ distinct  as  the  waves,’  are  yet  ‘ one  as  the  sea,’  ” and, 
speaking  of  “ the  unity  and  continuity  of  Methodist 
teaching  upon  the  subject  of  Christian  experience,”  he 
said : “ The  solidarity  of  the  Methodist  in  this  respect  is 
of  the  first  importance.  It  does  not  matter  so  much 
that  we  attain  organic  unity.  So  long  as  we  are  not 
alienated  in  heart  or  divided  by  unbrotherly  strifes  we 
can  afford  to  live  within  separate  ecclesiastical  lines, 
and  leave  the  good  providence  of  God  to  bring  about 
the  end  He  may  desire,”  but  there  was  no  proffer  of,  or 
expressed  wish  for,  organic  unity. 

So  the  Honorable  G.  B.  Perkins  said  he  came  “ from 
one  branch  of  a common  family : to  bring  its  greetings  to 
the  grand  council  of  another,”  and  spoke  of  the  conflict 
of  the  Puritan  of  the  North  and  the  Cavalier  of  the 
South,  but  there  was  no  phrase  breathing  a suggestion 
in  favor  of  organic  union  between  the  two  denominations. 


FRATERNAL  ADDRESSES 


275 


The  Reverend  Dr.  E.  E.  Hoss  was  the  delegate  from 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  General  Conference  of  1900.  He  restated 
the  view  of  the  Church  South  as  to  the  episcopacy  and 
the  limitation  on  the  General  Conference  in  the  matter 
of  passing  upon  the  constitutionality  of  its  own  acts, 
and  said  : “ In  our  years  of  separation  we  have  doubt- ^ 
less  drifted  apart  in  some  outward  and  noticeable  par- 
ticulars. But  a careful  study  of  the  two  Episcopal 
Methodisms,  made  in  large  part  on  the  ground  where 
they  are  both  actually  at  work,  has  served  to  convince 
me  that,  after  all,  the  differences  between  them  are  in- 
finitesimal when  compared  with  the  points  in  which 
they  agree.  Superficially  disunited,  they  are  yet  linked 
together  by  a thousand  ties  as  close  and  holy  as  the 
love  of  God  can  make  them.  Even  in  outward  aspects, 
they  are  as  much  alike  as  two  handsome  sisters,  each 
one  of  whom,  while  retaining  her  individuality  of  ex- 
pression and  bearing,  also  carries  all  the  family  marks,” 
but  he  had  no  proffer  or  suggestion  of  organic  unity. 

To  the  General  Conference  of  1904,  the  Reverend 
John  C.  Kilgo,  D.  D.,  was  accredited  as  fraternal  dele- 
gate from  the  Church  South.  He  also  brought  “ assur- 
ances of  fraternal  esteem  with  unstinted  cordiality,”  and 
uttered  many  lofty  truths,  but,  while^  he  said : ‘‘  A 
unified  Christian  Church — ‘ unified  in  a heavenly 
communion  rather  than  compacted  into  an  earthly  cor- 
poration ’ — is  the  supreme  need  of  the  age.  The  day  of 
segregations,  of  prejudices,  of  provincialism,  of  antago- 
nism and  sectional  strifes  should  be  fully  past  in  this  land. 
Americans  are  not  tribal  pagans  masquerading  in 
sacerdotal  robes,  and  strifes  and  divisions  do  not  become 
this  nation  within  whose  borders  the  note  of  Christian 


276 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


song  is  never  hushed,”  yet,  notwithstanding  the  note  of 
fraternity  and  fellowship,  he  raised  no  voice  for  a com- 
munion that  was  organic  in  a single  external  ecclesias- 
ticism. 

The  Reverend  Collins  Denny,  D.  D.,  was  the  fraternal 
delegate  from  the  Church  South  to  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal General  Conference  of  1908,  which  met  in  Balti- 
more. He  brought  from  his  Church  its  “ affectionate 
salutations,  its  warm  assurance  of  fraternal  regard.” 
He  could  say,  as  he  did  in  his  words  of  farewell : “ I am 
the  third  of  my  generation  to  preach  the  Gospel  in  the 
Methodist  pulpits  of  this  city.  My  own  grandfather, 
who  died  within  my  own  memory,  died  a member  of 
your  Church.  My  uncle  (the  Reverend  J ohn  A.  Col- 
lins), through  his  long  life,  was  very  highly  honored 
among  you,”  and  yet,  with  all  this  lineage  of  which  he 
was  proud,  he  had  not  a single  suggestion  in  favor  of 
the  organic  union  of  his  Church  with  the  Church  of  his 
forefathers.  Truly  he  could  say : I could  not  be  among 
the  delegates  to  a General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  without  considerable  feeling  and  with- 
out its  being  necessary  to  lay  a very  strong  pressure 
upon  the  emotional  side  of  my  nature,”  but  there  was 
voiced  no  wish  that  the  two  Churches  might  be  once 
again  a united  ecclesiasticism — one  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  for  the  whole  country. 

To  the  Methodist  Episcopal  General  Conference  of 
1912  the  fraternal  delegate  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  was  the  Reverend  Frank  M.  Thomas,  D.  D.  He 
spoke  friendly  and  gracious  words,  as  had  others,  but  he 
went  further  and  favored  some  form  of  union  between 
the  two  Churches,  though  he  did  not  appear  to  have  a 
settled  plan  by  which  it  might  be  brought  about.  On 


FRATERNAL  ADDRESSES 


277 


this  matter  he  said : “ Believing  that  a majority  of  the 
Methodists  on  this  Continent  earnestly  desii’e  some  solu- 
tion of  the  problems  before  us,  believing  that  our  risen 
Lord  is  commanding  us  by  His  Spirit  to  seek  and  find  a 
solution  of  the  problem  of  a divided  and  overlapping 
Methodism,  I am  here  to  speak  to  you  frankly  and 
freely.  I dare  not  affirm  that  all  I say  will  be  indorsed 
by  the  entire  ministry  and  membership  of  my  Church, 
but  I do  say  that  a large  majority  of  them  are  deeply 
concerned  about  the  problem  of  Methodist  unifica- 
tion. . . . 

“ There  are  three  classes  of  Methodists  in  America. 
There  are  those  who  are  pessimistic  as  to  any  solution 
of  the  problem.  They  would  have  each  Methodism  go 
on  its  way,  loving  and  respecting  the  rights  of  the 
other.  . . . Two  mighty  armies,  though  loyal  to 

the  same  flag,  cannot  safely  maneuver  over  the  same 
field.  . . . Then  there  are  those  who  believe  the 

problem  of  American  Methodism  to  be  one  of  easy 
solution.  They  would  heal  the  breaches  of  the  past  by 
a simple  fusion  of  the  two  Episcopal  Methodisms. 
They  would  restore  by  vote  the  ecclesiastical  status  as 
it  existed  prior  to  1844.  Such  a solution  is  deserving 
of  careful  attention.  On  its  face  it  seems  the  logical 
thing  to  do,  but  when  other  facts  are  taken  into  con- 
sideration, when  the  mind  which  desires  above  all 
things  to  keep  the  spirit  of  unity  in  the  bond  of  peace 
will  inquire  if  some  other  solution  be  not  possible.” 

Then  Doctor  Thomas  points  to  divergencies  which  in 
the  course  of  years  have  developed  in  both  denomina- 
tions. So  he  says : “ Seldom  in  nature  or  in  political 
or  ecclesiastical  history  do  we  find  two  organisms  hav- 
ing a common  origin,  but  long  separated,  achieving  re- 


278 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


union  by  simple  fusion.  It  is  a fact  of  biology  that 
each  separate  organism  develops  its  own  individual  life 
and  as  time  elapses  its  distinguishing  characteristics  be- 
come more  marked.  Whether  for  good  or  evil,  the  two 
Episcopal  Methodisms  have  developed  in  their  separa- 
tion marked  divergencies.  Some  of  these  can  be  ac- 
counted for  by  environment,  and  some  are  due  to  a dif- 
fei’ent  mental  standpoint  in  regard  to  a few  funda- 
mental aspects  of  life.  To  ignore  present  differences 
and  by  simple  fusion  attempt  to  restore  the  status  as  it 
existed  seventy  years  ago  would  be  an  unwise  policy, 
especially  as  regards  my  own  Church.  We  have  al- 
ready found  it  difficult  to  wisely  legislate  for  our  whole 
connection,  especially  in  local  matters.  How  difficult, 
then,  for  a consolidated,  unrestricted  General  Conference, 
representing  reunited  Methodism,  to  wisely  legislate  in 
some  matters  for  New  England  and  Georgia  at  the 
same  time.  Even  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
itself  a double  body,  does  not  attempt  such  a task,  but 
leaves  local  legislation  to  the  State  Legislatures.  Con- 
sidering the  differences  of  thought  and  life  which  still 
exist  in  America,  to  attempt  such  a perilous  experiment 
just  now,  when  the  Hand  of  Blessing  seems  laid  so 
generously  upon  Southern  Methodism,  would,  in  the 
judgment  of  our  most  thoughtful  men,  be  assuming  too 
great  a risk  for  the  ark  of  God.” 

All  of  which  suggests  some  form  of  state  sovereignty 
and  is  against  the  union  of  the  two  Churches  in  one  gov- 
ernment for  the  entire  territory  of  the  proposed  united 
Church.  But  even  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
legislates  for  the  whole  country.  The  drift  of  the  argu- 
ment is  in  favor  of  sectional  rather  than  general  govern- 
ment for  such  a united  Church,  and  each  Church  in 


FRATERNAL  ADDRESSES  279 

such  a union  would  have  less  general  power  than  the 
Churches  now  have. 

Then  pointing  to  what  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  the  Church  South  considered  a doubtful  radi- 
calism, Doctor  Thomas  remarked : “ And  there  are 
those  among  us  in  the  South  who  feel,  even  if  there 
were  not  profound  divergence  in  life  and  thought,  that 
just  at  this  time  when  there  seems  to  be  such  a wide- 
spread call  for  radical  changes  in  your  (Methodist  Epis- 
copal) polity,  it  would  be  wise  to  wait  and  see  if  the 
iconoclast  is  to  have  his  way.  He  is  a gentleman  very 
much  abroad  in  the  modern  world,  both  in  Church  and 
State.  With  no  deep  grasp  on  the  truths  of  life  and 
history,  he  is,  when  a layman,  guided  largely  by  eco- 
nomic expediency.  When  a minister,  he  is  merely  the 
sport  of  the  monistic  wash  which  the  wave  of  Hege- 
lianism has  left  on  the  sands  of  the  twentieth  century. 
He  is  in  favor  of  the  abolition  of  the  eldership.,  the  in- 
stitution of  a diocesan  episcopacy,  with  a very  strong 
drift  towards  a congregational  polity.  He  would  ruth- 
lessly remove  from  the  Methodist  Church  every  finger- 
print of  the  mightiest  man  of  modern  times,  John 
Wesley.  . . . 

“ Therefore,  we  of  the  South,  still  enamored  of  the 
old  Methodist  system,  are  waiting  to  see  how  far  the 
spirit  of  expediency  shall  lay  its  dissolving  touch  upon 
your  great  Church.  We  view  with  apprehension  some 
changes  which  you  have  already  made,  and  regard  as 
extremely  perilous  some  suggestions  now  before  you  for 
action.  It  may  seem  an  impertinence  for  us  to  say  any- 
thing concerning  your  domestic  problems.  If  so,  par- 
don it  as  a sister’s  solicitude.  For  we  would  regard  it 
as  nothing  less  than  a national  calamity  should  you  lose 


280 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


the  distinguishing  mark  of  Episcopal  Methodism.  We 
might  be  compelled  to  drop  the  word  ‘ South,’  and  be- 
come the  sole  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America ! ” 

This  was  not  a pleasantry  but  a serious  intimation 
that  the  Church  South  was  in  no  haste  as  to  the  matter 
of  union,  and  that  it  would  not  unite  if  what  it  regarded 
as  a radical  spirit  should  continue  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  Then  he  specifies  the  episcopacy 
and  the  presiding  eldership.  Beginning  with  the  dis- 
trict superintendent,  the  Doctor  said  : ‘‘  Some  laymen 
among  you  have  been  so  industriously  decrying  him 
that  the  microbe  has  crossed  our  border,  and  occasion- 
ally we  find  a preacher  or  layman  advocating  a diocesan 
episcopacy  and  the  abolition  of  the  eldership.” 

To  these  movements  he  objected  and  intimated  that 
they  repelled  the  Church  South. 

Proceeding,  he  observed  that  ‘‘  There  are  many  in 
American  Methodism,  North  and  South,  who  believe 
that  the  creation  of  a truly  national  Methodism  is  not 
an  impossibility.  Notwithstanding  the  many  difficul- 
ties in  the  way,  they  believe  that  there  are  rising  the 
outlines  of  a mightier  and  nobler  Methodism  than  this 
continent  has  yet  known.  ...  I have  faith  to  be- 
lieve, in  the  face  of  many  difiioulties,  that  through  fed- 
eration, adjudication,  or  unification,  American  Method- 
ism will  yet  be  one.” 

Again  he  said : “ May  we  not  lay  the  foundations  of 
a united  Methodism  in  peace  and  love,  and  trust  our 
General  Conferences,  aye,  command  them,  to  slowly 
bring  it  to  legal  perfection  ? ” 

But  with  all  this  kindly  expression  it  was  plain  that 
this  fraternal  delegate  from  the  Church  did  not  believe 


FRATERNAL  ADDRESSES 


281 


in  a union  by  a mere  fusion  or  blending  of  the  two 
bodies  into  one  without  any  preliminary  stipulations  as 
to  the  nature  of  the  combination.  His  idea  evidently 
meant  a relation  that  recognized  differences  in  fact  and 
view  and  that  instead  of  blotting  out  peculiarities  would 
perpetuate  them  in  various  geographical  localities. 
This  is  shown  also  in  his  reference  to  a recently  pro- 
posed suggestion  to  divide  the  whole  country  into 
great  geographical  sections  which  would  practically  be 
self-governing.  That  is  to  say,  the  Church  South  sec- 
tion would  still  be  the  Church  South  section,  and  the 
union  would  not  be  a union  with  a common  government 
as  now  is  the  case  with  a nation-wide  Church.  Further- 
more it  was  distinctly  intimated  that  if  what  the  South 
regarded  as  “ radical  changes  ” in  polity  in  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  were  to  prevail  and  “ the  icono- 
clast is  to  have  his  way,”  the  Church  South  would  not 
only  “ wait  and  see  ” but  it  would  not  unite  in  any  way 
but  would  ‘‘  be  compelled  ” to  assert  itself  to  be,  “ and 
become  the  sole  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America.”  In  other  words  there  was 
no  direct  and  immediate  assurance  of  the  willingness 
of  the  Church  South  to  form  a union  “ through  federa- 
tion, adjudication,  or  unification,”  and  if  there  was  to 
be  any  closer  relationship  it  was  apparently  to  be  a 
combination  by  federation  in  some  form  rather  than  a 
fusion  which  would  have  a pervading  and  uniform 
oneness. 

To  those  who  think  that  the  uniting  of  two  Churches 
is  an  easy  matter  of  a moment  may  be  presented  Doc- 
tor Thomas’s  cautionary  remark  that  “The  task  of 
unifying  American  Methodism  will  not  be  the  work 
of  a day.  . . . The  unification  of  American  Method- 


282 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


ism  must  be  preceded  by  ^ a firm  league  of  friendship  ’ 
which  shall  bind  each  Church  to  assist  the  other,  and 
in  honor  prefer  the  other  where  the  other  has  a right 
to  be  preferred.”  As  to  this  one  may  ask,  Who  is  to 
judge  and  determine  ? 

Again  Doctor  Thomas  said ; “ Not  easily  will  insti- 
tutions, rooted  in  tradition  and  buttressed  by  dogma, 
change  their  forms  and  coalesce  into  new  organiza- 
tions. Not  rashly  will  Churches,  which  have  a free 
and  abundant  life,  consent  to  exchange  their  safety  and 
freedom  for  the  perilous  path  of  a huge  ecclesiasticism.” 

The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  meeting  in  Baltimore  in  the  year  1908,  sent  a 
deputation  to  visit  the  General  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Protestant  Church  assembled  at  the  same  time,  in 
the  city  of  Pittsburgh.  With  the  fraternal  deputation, 
headed  by  Bishop  Henry  W.  Warren,  went  an  address 
which  had  been  adopted  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
General  Conference  on  the  11th  of  May,  1908. 

This  address  formed  the  body  of  the  credentials  for 
the  deputies  which  they  presented  to  the  Methodist 
Protestant  Conference.  In  it  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
General  Conference  proposed  that  the  two  Churches 
become  one.  Thus  it  said : “ Having  a common  origin, 
holding  a common  faith,  possessing  so  much  of  disci- 
pline and  policy  in  common,  and  above  all,  the  deep- 
rooted  and  growing  conviction  that  the  union  of 
the  various  Methodisms  would  strengthen  the  local 
Churches,  secure  economy  of  resource,  make  for  ag- 
gressive evangelism,  and  hasten  the  kingdom  of  our 
Lord,  they  earnestly  desire  that  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal and  Methodist  Protestant  Churches  shall  become 
organically  one. 


FRATERNAL  ADDRESSES 


283 


“That  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  General 
Conference  assembled,  hereby  most  cordially  invites 
the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  to  unite  with  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  order  that,  as  one  great 
Methodist  body,  they  and  we  may  fulfill  the  better  our 
individual  commissions  by  preventing  the  waste  of 
rivalry  and  exalting  the  God  of  peace.’’ 

On  the  22d  of  May,  1908,  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  drew  up  and  adopted 
a reply  to  the  above  communication  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  General  Conference.  In  this  response  were 
recited  propositions  which  had  been  received  for  the 
organic  union  of  the  Congregational,  United  Brethren, 
and  Methodist  Protestant  Churches,  and  referring  to 
the  action  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  “proposing  the  renewal  of  organic 
fellowship  with  them  as  the  beginning  of  a movement 
for  a reunited  and  common  Methodism  in  America,”  it 
said : 

“The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Church  hails  with  joy  these  tokens  of  the  triumph  of 
love  and  unity  in  the  Church  of  the  loving  Christ.” 
Then  it  said  the  Church  responded  “ to  the  powerful 
and  loving  appeal  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
with  loving  and  appreciative  happiness,”  and  felt  under 
obligation  “to  carry  on  this  appeal  to  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  to  other  Methodist  bodies 
in  America,  until  the  sun  shall  no  more  rise  upon  the 
divided  and  scattered  children  of  Wesley,  but  our 
united  country  shall  rejoice  in  a united  Church  that 
will  need  no  other  name  than  ‘ The  Methodist  Church 
of  America.’  ” 

One  of  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Methodist 


284: 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Protestant  Conference,  and  incorporated  in  the  reponse 
said:  “We  respond  heartily  to  the  proposal  of  the 
Methodist  [Episcopal]  Church,  not  unmindful  of  the 
difficulties  to  be  overcome  before  a satisfactory  con- 
clusion can  be  reached,  but  ready  to  go  as  far  and  as 
rapidly,  in  consummating  a universal  Methodism,  as  the 
interests  and  integrity  of  our  own  denomination  will 
permit ; and  to  pray  continually  for  the  full  realization 
of  their  and  our  hope.” 

The  Methodist  Protestant  General  Conference  ap- 
pointed a commission  to  meet  with  like  commissions 
from  other  Methodistic  bodies,  and  also  appointed  three 
fraternal  deputies  to  convey  the  greetings  of  that  body 
to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

After  the  presentation  and  reading  of  their  creden- 
tials to  that  General  Conference  on  the  twenty-sixth 
day  of  May,  1908,  these  deputies,  namely,  the  Reverend 
T.  H.  Lewis,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  President  of  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church,  the 
Reverend  A.  L.  Reynolds,  D.  D.,  and  the  Honorable 
J.  W.  Hering,  LL.  D.,  were  introduced  and  addressed 
the  body. 

Doctor  Lewis  spoke  most  eloquently  in  behalf  of  a 
reunited  Methodism  in  America.  Thus  he  said:  “In 
the  eighty  years  that  have  intervened  since  the  sad 
separation  of  the  daughter  from  the  family  home  we 
have  never  ceased  to  honor  and  love  the  family  name ; 
we  have  never  ceased  to  labor  in  the  great  mission  of 
Methodism,  namely,  ‘ to  spread  Scriptural  holiness  over 
these  lands  ’ ; and  we  have  never  ceased  to  believe  and 
to  pray  that  some  time.  His  own  good  time,  God  will 
bring  again  the  scattered  tribes  of  Methodism  together, 


FRATERNAL  ADDRESSES 


285 


‘and  Ephraim  shall  not. envy  Judah,  and  Judah  shall 
not  vex  Ephraim.’ 

“ It  will  not  seem  strange  to  you,  I am  sure,  that  we 
have  not  all  made  up  our  minds  what  our  immediate 
duty  is  in  this  great  matter.  The  change  of  Church 
relations  is  a solemn  responsibility,  never  to  be  entered 
upon  unadvisedly,  but  reverently,  discreetly,  and  in  the 
fear  of  God.  . . . You  do  not  expect  and  we  do 

not  understand  that  our  membership.  Churches,  Con- 
ferences, and  institutions  are  simply  to  be  emptied  out 
of  one  bag  into  another.  You  are  big  enough  to  hold 
us,  but  you  are  too  big  to  want  us  in  that  fashion.  It 
will  take  time  and  patience,  much  wisdom  and  great 
love,  to  adjust  all  the  details  of  such  a union.  But 
that  such  a union  is  honorable  and  possible  and  desir- 
able, I have  not  the  slightest  doubt.” 

Doctor  Reynolds  said : “ Representing  the  ministers 
of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church,  it  is  my  great 
pleasure  to  assure  you  that  we  are  ready  to  meet  with 
you  and  treat  with  you  upon  a basis  of  union  honorable 
alike  to  all.  We  came  out  from  you.  It  may  be  pos- 
sible that  our  essential  differences  may  no  longer  need 
to  be  causes  of  division.  If  so,  it  may  be  possible  that 
we,  as  one  of  the  smaller  bodies,  may  in  some  divinely 
directed  way  be  permitted  to  be  a mediator  of  Method- 
isms,  and  in  this  contemplated  Methodist  merger  bring 
about  the  glorious  millennium  of  Methodism.” 

The  Honorable  W.  J.  Hering  spoke  in  a similar  strain 
and  said : “We  earnestly  pray  that,  if  God  will,  it  may 
speedily  come,  when  all  the  Methodisms  of  this  great 
country  of  ours  will  be  one.” 

After  these  addresses  had  been  delivered.  Bishop 
Warren  vacated  the  chair  and  graciously  invited  Doc- 


286 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


tor  Lewis  to  occupy  it  and  preside.  Doctor  Lewis 
did  so,  and  Bishop  Warren,  addressing  the  Methodist 
Protestant  chairman  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Gen- 
eral Conference,  replied  in  fitting  phrases,  and  closed 
by  saying:  “Brethren,  nothing  is  impossible  at  the 
foot  of  Calvary.  And  all  these  difiiculties  will  be  for- 
gotten. The  action  upon  which  we  have  entered  will 
be  continued  in  separate  Conferences,  in  individual 
Churches,  and  reports  be  made  to  the  next  Conference. 
And  so  the  benediction  of  God  shall  come  upon  the 
united  Churches.” 

It  was  a memorable  occasion,  but  the  years  have 
passed,  and  the  union  has  not  yet  come. 


XXYI 


ATTEMPTS  AT  FEDERATIOX  BETWEEN  THE 
METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHUECH  AND 
THE  CHUECH  SOUTH 


,HE  sanguine  conclusions  of  the  “Cape  May 


Commission”  in  the  summer  of  1876  were 


hardly  sustained  by  the  facts  of  subsequent 


years.  The  report  of  that  joint  commission  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  set  forth  that  the  commission 
had  reached  “ a unanimous  agreement  of  complete  fra- 
ternitv that  there  would  be  known  “ no  unfraternal 
Methodism  in  the  United  States,  or  even  in  the  wide 
world,”  and  that  “ These  fraternized  Churches  have  no 
further  occasion  for  sectional  disputes  or  acrimonious 
differences.” 

The  benediction  was  pronounced,  the  ecclesiastical 
sky  seemed  serene,  and  kindly  souls  rejoiced,  but  that 
the  outcome  was  all  that  the  commission  anticipated 
the  facts  of  history  do  not  prove. 

That  was  forty-nine  years  ago — almost  half  a century 
ago — and  any  one  who  knows  the  history  would  not 
dare  to  say  that  there  have  been  no  “ acrimonious  dif- 
ferences,” or  that  there  was  and  has  been  “complete 
fraternity  ” between  the  two  Churches  ever  since  the 
adjustment  made  by  the  “ Cape  May  Commission.” 

Though  it  may  be  true  that  “these  fraternized 
Churches  ” had  “ no  further  occasion  for  sectional  dis- 


287 


288 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


putes  or  acrimonious  differences,^’  nevertheless  every- 
thing was  not  settled  by  and  after  the  Cape  May  Com- 
mission, for  the  unfortunate  fact  is  that  differences  did 
develop  and  various  difficulties  did  exist  or  were  asserted 
to  exist. 

Certain  property  claims  were  adjusted  and  certain 
principles  were  laid  down  but  these  arrangements  did 
not  produce  complete  harmony.  Many  believed  that 
something  more  was  needed  and  from  time  to  time  at- 
tempts have  been  made  to  promote  a more  perfect 
fraternity  between  the  two  bodies,  especially  where 
they  have  been  working  in  the  same  locality  and  more 
particularly  in  the  South. 

For  a considerable  time  the  familiar  words  used  to 
express  the  desired  feeling  and  relation  were  fraternal 
and  fraternity,  but  gradually  another  word  was  substi- 
tuted for  fraternity.  This  word  was  federation. 

Evidently  federation  was  meant  to  stand  for  some- 
thing stronger  and  closer  than  fraternity,  and,  yet,  in 
many  minds  there  has  been  no  clear  comprehension  as 
to  what  this  so-called  federation  means  and  represents 
between  these  two  Churches. 

In  a general  sense,  and  to  most  persons,  federation 
and  confederation  have  the  idea  of  combination  or  some 
form  or  degree  of  union.  Thus,  to  federate,  Latin 
fmderatus^  pp.  of  feeder  are,  to  establish  by  league,  from 
foedus,  a league,  is  to  unite  in  a league  or  federation ; 
to  organize  under  a federal  government. 

This  idea  of  federation,  however,  did  not  mean  prac- 
tically a combination  or  union  of  the  two  denomina- 
tions, but  merely  an  effort  through  representatives  of 
both  bodies  to  settle  differences  as  to  the  forming  of 
congregations,  the  building  of  churches,  and  the  inau- 


ATTEMPTS  AT  FEDERATION 


289 


gurating  and  carrying  forward  of  various  forms  of 
work  where  both  denominations  are  present  and,  per 
haps,  are  competing  in  and  for  a particular  locality. 

Plainly  such  federation  does  not  mean  organic  union, 
for  each  Church  preserves  its  separate  existence  and 
independence. 

Some  have  sought  to  interpret  the  supposed  principle 
as  meaning  that  where  one  Church  exists  in  a city  or 
other  locality  the  other  should  not  enter,  and  some  in 
the  Southern  section  of  the  country  have  practically 
construed  the  principle  to  mean  that  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  has  no  right  to  go  into  or  be  in  the 
South  because  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
has  been  somewhere  in  that  section. 

That  has  been  the  logic  of  some  Southern  leaders 
who  have  held  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America  has  no  right  anywhere 
in  the  South  and  that  it  should  get  out  of  the  South 
entirely  and  forever,  and  that  the  Church  South  is  the 
only  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  that  has  any  right  in 
the  South,  say  below  the  Ohio  River. 

Even  very  recently  a writer  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  so  interpreted  the  idea  of 
federation  as  meaning  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  should  depart  from  the  Southern  section  of  the 
country. 

Thus,  in  the  New  Orleans  Christian  Advocate  of  Oc- 
tober 21,  1909,  a minister  of  the  Church  South  says : 

“We  must  hold  to  the  real  meaning  of  federation, 
namely,  that  it  is  ojpjposed  to  organic  union.  The  very 
definition  of  federation  shuts  out  organic  union.,  for  fed- 
eration is  based  on  the  expectancy  of  the  permanency 
of  separateness  and  self-control  in  each  member  joining 


290 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


the  compact.  ...  If,  therefore,  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  is  working,  as  many  of  us  think, 
for  organic  union,  it  is  unfair  and  insincere  to 
cover  their  effort  with  a proposed  federation.  . . . 

If  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  goes  into  federation 
as  federation,  she  must  recognize  the  territory  ceded  to 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  at  the  time  of 
the  division  by  the  General  Conference  of  184:4:.” 

As  a matter  of  fact  the  General  Conference  of  184:4: 
did  not  divide  the  Church.  Neither  did  it  cede  any  ter- 
ritory to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  it 
had  no  right  to  cede  any  territory  in  the  United  States 
of  America.  The  Church  South  was  not  in  existence 
in  1844:,  and  only  came  into  existence  in  1845  after  cer- 
tain parties  had  voluntarily  withdrawn  from  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church. 

Then  if  there  was  any  uncertainty  about  the  action 
of  1844,  the  General  Conference  of  1848  cleared  that 
away  by  declaring  the  action  of  1844  to  be  invalid,  and 
the  Annual  Conferences  nullified  its  proposition  by  re- 
fusing to  concur.  Further  if  anything  remained  of  the 
above  interpretation  of  the  action  of  1 844  it  was  swept 
away  by  the  results  of  the  Civil  War  and  the  elimina- 
tion of  slavery  which  was  understood  by  some  to  mark 
a line.  Still  further,  the  interpretation  was  cancelled 
by  the  Church  South  when  it  carried  its  Church  work 
into  the  North,  as  it  began  to  do  in  the  forties  and 
when,  after  the  Civil  War,  its  General  Conference  of 
1866  formally  declared  there  was  no  restricting  line 
and  so  abrogated  any  line  as  it  had  previously  by  its 
own  movements  abandoned  any  line  for  which  at  any 
time  it  had  contended,  so  that  now,  when,  for  from  fifty 
to  seventy  years,  both  Churches  have  by  their  actions 


ATTEMPTS  AT  FEDERATION 


291 


asserted  there  was  no  restricting  line,  it  is  too  late  to 
claim  that  the  Church  South  has  any  exclusive  right  to 
the  Southern  section  of  the  United  States. 

Nevertheless,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the 
Church  South  had  abandoned  in  1866  the  indefinite 
line  which  it  had  claimed  and  had  abrogated  any  and 
every  asserted  line,  the  writer  just  quoted  at  this  late 
period  claims,  as  have  others,  that  there  cannot  be  any 
federation  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  that 
does  not  keep  the  latter  Church  out  of  the  South,  and 
this  is  a specimen  of  one  form  of  Southern  logic  bearing 
upon  federation  as  viewed  by  not  a few  in  that  part  of 
the  land. 

If  such  Southern  thinkers  object  to  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  being  in  the  South  on  the  ground 
that  the  northern  border  of  the  South  was  the  dividing 
line  between  the  two  Churches,  it  might  be  asked  why 
then  has  the  Church  South  gone  into  many  Northern 
States,  and  even  up  into  Oregon,  which  it  did  as  early 
as  1849  ? Why,  it  may  be  asked,  if  there  was  such  a 
line,  did  the  Church  South  go  into  the  North  and  why 
has  it  projected  and  carried  on  extensive  operations 
north  of  the  line  of  the  thirteen  Southern  Conferences 
which  withdrew  in  1845  ? Even  the  city  of  Washing- 
ton, in  the  District  of  Columbia,  never  was  in  the  terri- 
tory of  the  withdrawn  Conferences  of  1845.  The  fact 
that  the  Church  South  goes  into  the  North  and  West, 
according  to  its  own  pleasure,  shows  that  the  Church 
South  does  not  recognize  any  restricting  line  of  division 
and,  consequently,  there  is  no  barrier  to  keep  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  out  of  the  South. 

Yet,  strange  to  say,  some  Southern  leaders  and  writers 
persist  in  an  idea  of  Federation  that  means  a process 


292 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


that  if  carried  out  would  “federate”  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  entirely  out  of  the  South. 

The  remark  of  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Church  Relations  in  the  1914  General  Conference  of 
the  Church  South,  “ that  where  either  Methodism  is  es- 
tablished and  doing  the  work  of  Methodism  the  other 
shall  not  enter,”  might  be  construed  as  meaning  that  as 
the  Church  South  is  in  the  South,  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  has  no 
right  in  the  South,  but  this  would  mean  also  that  the 
Church  South  should  retire  from  the  North  and  West 
and  restrict  itself  to  the  South  of  1844  and  1845.  This, 
however,  would  not  be  a federation  but  a division  of  the 
country,  and,  with  both  Churches  refusing  to  recognize 
any  limiting  line  of  division,  it  is  too  late  in  the  day  for 
those  of  a certain  Southern  school  of  thought  to  prac- 
tically or  actually  assert  that  there  is  a geographical 
line  of  separation  between  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
that  excludes  the  former  denomination  from  the  South. 

However,  from  the  word  and  idea  of  fraternity,  the 
Churches  have  passed  to  the  use  of  the  word  federation, 
and  though  with  many  it  would  still  seem  that  the 
word  has  no  very  distinct  definition  and  the  average 
mind  has  no  clear  conception  of  what  is  intended,  nev- 
ertheless there  has  been  forming  an  idea  of  federation 
which  implies  that  both  Churches  may  be  in  the  South. 

This  idea  of  federation  that  permits  both  denomina- 
tions to  be  in  the  same  section,  the  same  city,  or  the 
same  town,  is  a broadening  of  the  concessions  of  the 
Cape  May  Commission  of  1876,  which  admitted  the  fact 
and  right  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
South. 


ATTEMPTS  AT  FEDERATION 


293 


In  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  held  in  1894,  and  on  the  19th  of  May, 
the  following  was  adopted : 

“ Resolved^  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  now  in  session.  That 
the  bishops  be  requested  to  appoint  a Commission  on 
Federation,  consisting  of  three  bishops,  three  ministers, 
and  three  laymen,  and  that  the  secretary  be  instructed 
to  notify  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  of  this  action,  and  request  it  to 
appoint  a similar  commission. 

‘^Eesolvedy  That  this  commission  shall  have  power 
to  enter  into  negotiations  with  said  similar  commission 
from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  if  one  shall  be 
appointed,  with  a view  to  abating  hurtful  competitions 
and  the  waste  of  men  and  money  in  home  and  foreign 
fields. 

“ Resolved^  That  any  arrangements  which  such  com- 
mission may  make  shall  be  reported  to  the  next  General 
Conference  for  adoption,  alteration,  or  rejection.” 

The  commission,  therefore,  had  no  final  power,  but 
was  merely  to  confer.  Then  it  was  to  report  to  its 
General  Conference  which  reserved  all  authority  in  the 
matter  of  determination.  It  will  be  seen  also  that  the 
proposal  was  not  for  organic  union  but  simply  an 
agreement  to  prevent  injurious  competitions  between 
the  two  denominations  and  waste  of  men  and  money 
by  either  Church,  and  the  terms  were  such  that  they 
might  be  interpreted  differently  by  either  party  as  each 
might  have  a different  opinion  as  to  whether  a given 
movement  was  a “ hurtful  competition  ” or  a particular 
expenditure  was  a “ waste.” 

The  next  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 


294 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


copal  Church,  that  of  1896,  ordered  a corresponding 
“Commission  on  Federation”^  in  response  to  the 
Church  South. 

As  the  Journal  of  1900  recites : “ The  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  1896  met 
this  overture  in  a fraternal  spirit,  and  requested  the 
bishops  to  appoint  a similar  commission  with  equal 
power,  which  they  did.”  ^ 

As  has  been  observed,  this  proposition  for  a Com- 
mission on  Federation  was  not  a proposition  for  organic 
union,  or  a looking  in  that  direction,  on  the  part  of  the 
Church  South.  Long  years  before  that  Church  had 
declared  that  fraternity  or  federation  was  very  different 
from  organic  unity.  Thus  in  its  General  Conference 
of  1874,  the  Church  South  declared  that  “ Organic  union 
is  not  involved  in  fraternity.” 

In  the  mind  of  the  South  federation  merely  meant  a 
form  of  action  for  a common  purpose  by  two  decidedly 
different  and  independent  bodies.  In  its  view  federa- 
tion was  in  the  interest  of  the  Church  South  and  was 
intended  primarily  to  defend  the  Church  South  from 
the  incoming  and  spread  of  what  many  people  in  that 
section  were  pleased  to  call  the  Northern  Church. 

The  two  Commissions  on  Federation  met  and  formu- 
lated certain  recommendations.  Among  other  things, 
this  joint  commission  recommended  “ the  taking  of 
prompt  steps  for  the  preparation  of  a common  Cate- 
chism, a common  Hymn  Book,  and  a common  order  of 
public  worship,  and  that  other  branches  of  Methodism 
be  invited  to  cooperate  in  this  undertaking.” 

One  formulation  of  the  joint  commission  was  “ That 

* General  Conference  Journal,  1896,  p.  101, 

* lhid„  1900,  p.  367. 


ATTEMPTS  AT  FEDERATION 


295 


we  recommend  the  respective  General  Conferences  to 
enact  provisions  to  the  effect  that  where  either  Church 
is  doing  the  work  expected  of  Methodism  the  other 
Church  shall  not  organize  a society  nor  erect  a church 
building  until  the  bishop  having  jurisdiction  in  the 
case  of  the  work  shall  be  consulted  and  his  approval 
obtained.” 

This  logically  meant  that  the  two  denominations 
might  work  in  the  same  section  or  territory,  and  in  the 
same  place,  if  the  bishop  of  either  denomination  in 
charge  was  consulted  and  gave  his  consent,  so  that  the 
work  of  the  one  Church  might  go  on  if  its  bishop  ap- 
proved and  the  work  of  the  other  denomination  could 
go  on  in  the  same  place  if  the  consent  of  its  bishop  was 
secured. 

Then  there  might  be  a difference  of  opinion  as  to 
whether  one  or  the  other  Church  was  “ doing  the  work 
expected  of  Methodism,”  and  each  one  might,  and 
probably  would  insist  it  was  so  working,  and  either  one 
might  say  the  other  was  not  “ doing  the  work  expected 
of  Methodism”  or  not  doing  it  fully  and  insist  upon 
entering  the  particular  field.  Under  such  circumstances 
who  would  have  the  final  decision  ? Each  side  would 
judge  for  itself. 

The  joint  commission  also  recommended  the  two 
General  Conferences  “ to  adopt  measures  for  the  joint 
administration  of  our  publishing  interests  in  China  and 
Japan,”  and  commended  to  the  two  General  Confer- 
ences “ the  consideration  ” of  “ the  principle  and  desira- 
bility of  cooperative  administration  ” “ among  our  mis- 
sions in  foreign  lands.” 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  General  Conference  of  1900 
approved  and  adopted  “ the  acts  passed  by  the  joint 


296 


AMEEICAN  METHODISM 


Commission  on  Federation,”  * and  this  certainly  looked 
like  progress  in  the  matter  of  “ federation,”  though  there 
was  no  action  or  suggestion  upon  the  matter  of  organic 
unity. 

In  1904  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  passed  an  act  on  the  “ Federation  of 
Churches,”  and  it  was  placed  in  the  Appendix  to  its 
Book  of  Discipline  for  that  year,  as  T 50,  immediately 
after  the  act  on  “ Union  with  other  Churches,”  as  fol- 
lows : 


“ T 50.  Federation  of  Churches. 

“ First.  We  accept  and  adopt  the  action  of  the  joint 
Commission  on  Federation  providing  for  a common 
Hymnal,  a common  Catechism,  and  a common  Order 
of  Worship  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

“ Second.  This  General  Conference  hereby  approves 
and  adopts  the  acts  passed  by  the  joint  Commission  on 
Federation  of  the  Churches  to  the  effect  that  where 
either  Church  is  doing  the  work  of  Methodism  the  other 
Church  shall  not  organize  a society  or  erect  a church 
building  until  the  bishop  having  jurisdiction  in  the  case 
of  the  work  proposed  shall  be  consulted  and  his  ap- 
proval obtained. 

“ Third.  We  agree  with  the  Episcopal  Address,  that 
steps  might  be  wisely  taken  towards  a more  facile  in- 
terchange of  ministers  and  members,  and  to  promote 
other  measures  of  practical  fraternity  between  the  two 
chief  branches  of  American  Episcopal  Methodism,  and 
refer  the  subject  to  the  Board  of  Bishops  and  to  the 
joint  Commission  on  Federation,  to  adopt  such  measures 
^ General  Conference  Journal,  1900,  pp,  367-370, 


ATTEMPTS  AT  FEDERATION 


297 


as  in  their  judgment  shall  fulfill  the  spirit  of  this  reso- 
lution, and  to  that  end  we  recommend  the  continuance 
of  the  joint  Commission  on  Federation  for  another 
quadrennium,  its  members  to  be  appointed  by  the  Board 
of  Bishops  ; and  we  further  recommend  that  the  Com- 
mission on  Federation  take  such  steps  as  it  may  deem 
wise  and  necessary  to  bring  about  a closer  unity  and  a 
greater  fraternity  and  cooperation  in  Christian  work 
between  the  colored  Methodist  Churches  having  an 
episcopal  form  of  government.  Two  of  these  Churches, 
the  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  African 
Methodist  Episcopal  Zion  Church,  are  now  holding 
General  Conference  sessions,  and  we  suggest  that  they 
and  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  America, 
and  other  Methodist  bodies,  be  invited  to  join  with  us 
in  the  use  of  the  common  Hymnal,  the  common  Order 
of  Worship,  and  the  common  Catechism. 

“Fourth.  Whereas^  Two  Churches  of  like  creed, 
polity,  spirit,  and  purpose  with  our  own  have  signified 
through  prominent  officials  to  some  of  the  members  of 
this  General  Conference  a desire  that  some  initial  step 
might  be  taken  at  this  session  looking  towards  the  con- 
solidation of  these  Churches  with  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church ; therefore, 

“ Resolved^  That  the  powers  of  the  Commission  on 
Federation  be  so  enlarged  as  to  meet  like  commissions 
from  other  Churches,  receive  overtures,  and  report  to 
the  General  Conference  of  1908. 

“ Fifth.  On  the  subject  of  general  Church  federation 
and  cooperation  we  recommend  that  we  take  part  in 
the  proposed  Conference  of  representatives  of  Protestant 
Churches  to  be  held  in  New  York  City  in  November, 
1905,  and  that  the  bishops  be  requested  to  appoint  fifty 


'298 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


representatives  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  who 
shall  serve  without  expense  to  the  Church,  and  that 
Frank  Mason  North  be  appointed  representative  of  this 
Church  on  the  Committee  of  Arrangements.”  * 

Just  what  “two  Churches  of  like  creed,  polity,  spirit, 
and  purpose  ” are  referred  to  in  the  fourth  paragraph 
is  not  stated.  Merely  the  fact  that  there  were  two  de- 
nominations the  “ prominent  officials  ” of  which  had  ex- 
pressed a desire  for  consolidation  is  mentioned. 

The  particular  force  of  the  expression : “ the  consoli- 
dation of  these  Churches  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  ” is  not  perfectly  clear,  though  some  might  in- 
terpret it  as  implying  that  those  who  had  spoken  meant 
a mere  fusion  by  coming  into  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  as  it  was  at  that  time.  In  other  words  that 
they  would  consolidate  with  it  rather  than  it  with  the 
others,  and  that  there  would  be  a combination  that 
would  not  mean  a modification  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  meeting  in  1908,  passed  another  act,  entitled 
the  “ Commission  on  Federation,”  which  took  the  place 
of  the  Act  of  1904,  and  which  appears  in  the  Appendix 
of  the  Book  of  Discipline  for  1908  as  T 53,  under  the 
simple  caption  of  “ Federation,”  as  follows : 

“1.  That  the  Commission  on  Federation  be  contin- 
ued for  another  quadrennium,  and  that  its  members  be 
appointed  by  the  Board  of  Bishops  as  heretofore. 

“ 2.  That  said  Commission  is  hereby  instructed  to 
invite  the  Evangelical  Association,  the  United  Brethren, 
and  such  other  branches  of  Methodism  as  it  may  believe 
are  sympathetic,  to  confer  through  similar  commissions 
^ General  Conference  Journal,  1904. 


ATTEMPTS  AT  FEDERATION 


299 


concerning  federation  or  organic  union  as  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  same  Churches,  respectively,  may  be  most 
desirable,  and  to  report  to  the  General  Conference  of 
1912. 

3.  That  we  rejoice  in  the  increasing  evidences  of 
closer  fellowship  and  prospective  union  between  the 
various  branches  of  colored  Episcopal  Methodism  in  the 
United  States  as  one  of  the  most  striking  and  hopeful 
indications  of  the  growth  of  the  spirit  of  Christian 
unity,  and  hereby  instruct  the  Commission  on  Federa- 
tion to  further  these  results  as  far  as  may  be  prac- 
ticable. 

“4.  That  a commission  consisting  of  one  bishop, 
three  ministers  and  three  laymen  be  appointed  by  the 
Board  of  Bishops  to  serve  during  the  ensuing  quadren- 
nium  and  report  to  the  General  Conference  of  1912, 
whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  confer  with  similar  commis- 
sions, if  such  shall  be  appointed,  from  the  African  Meth- 
odist Episcopal,  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Zion, 
and  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches,  con- 
cerning such  questions  as  may  lead  to  more  harmonious 
cooperation  in  extending  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 

“ 5.  That  the  bishop  who  shall  be  a member  of  said 
Commission  shall  notify  the  General  Conferences  of  the 
African  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the  African  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Zion  Church,  and  the  Colored  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  of  our  willingness  to  confer  with 
similar  commissions  from  these  Churches.” 

This  action  meditated  efforts  towards  two  alter- 
natives, either  federation  or  organic  union  on  the  part 
of  white  churches  of  the  Methodistic  family,  and  also 
a separate  conference  and  consideration  with  colored 
Episcopal  Methodist  bodies  looking  towards  cooperation 


300 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


or  union  among  colored  Episcopal  Methodists.  In 
other  words  there  were  to  be  two  movements,  one 
among  white  Episcopal  Methodists  and  the  other 
among  colored  Episcopal  Methodists,  with  the  evident 
intention  of  effecting  two  consolidations,  one  a white 
and  the  other  a colored  Episcopal  Methodism. 

There  were  also  other  actions  on  the  subject  of  union 
by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  General  Conference  of  1908. 
Thus  there  was  one  in  reference  to  the  Methodist  Prot- 
estant Church. 

Thus  that  General  Conference  declared  that  it 
“ most  cordially  invites  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Church  to  unite  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,” 
and  it  sent  a Fraternal  Deputation  to  convey  “ this  in- 
vitation together  with  the  most  cordial  greetings  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.” 

The  General  Conference  also  referred  to  the  Com- 
mission on  Federation  the  question  of  closer  union  of 
the  German  work  in  Texas,  as  carried  on  by  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the  Church  South  and 
the  Evangelical  Association,  and  the  question  of  the 
union  of  Methodist  Churches  in  China  was  referred  to 
the  Federal  Council. 

Further  the  Commission  on  Federation  reported  con- 
cerning its  efforts  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  and  other  white  branches  of  Methodism,  and  at 
considerable  length  in  regard  to  consultations  with 
representatives  of  the  colored  Episcopal  Methodists. 

In  the  1912  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  its  Committee  on  Federation  made  a 
report  in  which  was  incorporated  the  statement  drawn 
up  by  the  Federation  Commissions  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 


ATTEMPTS  AT  FEDERATION 


301 


South,  and  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  in  joint 
session  in  Baltimore,  November  10,  1910,”  which  in 
part  is  as  follows ; 

“We  mutually  agree  that  the  Churches  represented 
by  us  are  equally  apostolic  in  faith  and  purpose  and 
having  a common  origin,  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  organized  in  1784;  that  they  are  joint  heirs 
of  the  traditions  and  doctrinal  standards  of  the  fathers, 
and  that  they  have  proved  their  loyalty  to  the  evan- 
gelical faith  and  evangelistic  spirit  which  characterized 
early  Methodists. 

“We  are  mutually  agreed  that  our  fathers  settled 
the  issues  of  the  past  conscientiously  for  themselves 
respectively,  and  separated  regretfully,  believing  that 
only  such  action  could  insure  their  continued  access  to 
the  people  they  were  called  to  serve.” 

This  shows  a desire  to  make  mutual  concessions  in 
order  to  strengthen  the  spirit  of  common  conciliation. 

Then,  favoring  “ some  form  of  unification  that  will 
further  allay  hurtful  competition,”  there  is  the  sugges- 
tion that  the  joint  commission,  “ if  found  practicable,” 
“ bring  to  the  General  Conferences  and  people  of  the 
respective  Churches  a plan  to  provide  for  such  unifica- 
tion through  reorganization  of  the  Methodist  Churches 
concerned,  as  shall  insure  unity  of  purpose,  administra- 
tion, evangelistic  effort,  and  all  other  functions  for 
which  our  Methodism  has  stood  from  the  beginning.” 

Having  finished  the  quotation  from  the  statement  of 
the  joint  commission,  the  report  of  the  committee 
continues : 

“We  heartily  approve  the  action  of  our  Commission 
on  Federation  in  proposing  the  consideration  of  the 
question  of  organic  union  to  the  commissioners  in  joint 


302 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


session  at  Baltimore,  believing  that  the  membership  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  would  welcome  a 
corporate  reunion  of  the  Methodisms  of  America.” 

The  report  also  said:  “We  reafllrm  the  declaration 
of  the  General  Conference  of  1908,  namely:  That 
union  of  these  Churches  having  a common  origin,  a 
common  faith,  and  possessing  so  much  of  discipline 
and  polity  in  common,  would  in  our  opinion  strengthen 
the  efficiency  of  the  local  Churches,  secure  economy  of 
resources,  make  for  aggressive  evangelism  and  whole- 
some civic  reform,  contribute  to  an  era  of  good  feeling 
among  people  of  all  sections,  and  hasten  the  kingdom 
of  our  Lord.  Therefore  we  most  cordially  invite  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  the  Methodist 
Protestant  Church,  and  all  other  branches  of  Method- 
ism to  join  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  a 
consecrated  and  persistent  effort  to  unify  the  various 
branches  of  the  Wesley  family  in  America  in  one  great 
Methodist  Church. 

“We  recommend  that  a Commission  on  Federation, 
constituted  as  before  and  appointed  by  the  bishops 
shall  be  named,  with  full  power  and  authority  to  con- 
tinue negotiations  and  to  treat  with  similar  commis- 
sions from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  the 
Methodist  Protestant  Church,  and  any  and  all  other 
duly  appointed  commissions  from  other  Churches  or 
branches  of  Methodism,  or  with  each  separately,  con- 
cerning the  commendable  purposes  of  advancing  organic 
union  or  closer  federation.  Said  Commission  to  report 
to  the  next  General  Conference.” 

In  the  Appendix  to  the  Book  of  Discipline  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  for  1912,  the  last  two  para- 
graphs of  this  report  appear  as  “ T[  562.  Federation,” 


ATTEMPTS  AT  FEDERATION 


303 


with  the  words  “ That  union  of  these  Churches  ” down 
to  “ the  kingdom  of  our  Lord,”  omitted,  and  omitted 
presumably  on  the  supposition  that  they  appeared  in  the 
chapter  in  the  Appendix  of  1908  which  was  not  the 
case. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  object  sought  was  not  or- 
ganic union  alone  but  “ organic  union  or  closer  federa- 
tion,” the  one  or  the  other.  That  is  to  say  “ organic 
union,”  if  that  was  practicable  but,  if  that  could  not  be 
secured,  then  federation  which  is  described  as  “ closer 
federation.” 

If  two  kindred  Churches  are  not  prepared  to  unite  it 
is  nevertheless  a good  thing  to  secure  and  preserve 
fraternal  relations,  and  in  the  case  of  the  two  bodies  in 
question  there  has  come  about  freer  communication 
and  greater  friendliness  than  was  possible  some  years 
ago. 

That  means  a gain  for  Christian  brotherhood. 


XXYII 

FEDEEATION  IX  PRACTICE 


Naturally  one  may  inquire  as  to  how  the 
plans  of  federation  which  have  been  devised, 
particularly,  since  the  action  of  the  Cape 
May  Commission  in  1876,  have  worked  out  in  practical 
operation. 

That  Commission  supposed  that  every  diiSculty  was 
settled — that,  as  its  members  said,  “ we  have  arrived  at 
a settlement  of  every  matter  affecting,  as  we  suppose, 
the  principles  of  a lasting  and  cordial  adjustment,”  and 
they  had  arrived  at  “ a unanimous  agreement  of  com- 
plete fraternity.” 

Difficulties,  however,  did  arise  from  time  to  time  in 
subsequent  years,  and,  hence,  the  repeated  resolutions 
in  favor  of  fraternity  and  federation  and  the  commis- 
sions on  federation  ordered  and  appointed  from  quad- 
rennium  to  quadrennium. 

Notwithstanding  all  these  resolutions,  reports,  and 
commissions,  still  there  was  not  a clear  and  uniform  un- 
derstanding as  to  their  import  and  their  force,  and  the 
question  continues  to  be  asked  openly  or  tacitly  in  some 
form — What  is  Federation  ? What  is  this  kind  of  Fed- 
eration ? What  is  it  intended  to  effect  ? What  can  it 
do  ? 

One  thing,  however,  is  accepted  as  quite  clear,  namely, 
that  this  Federation  is  not  unity,  but  rather,  on  the 
contrary,  is  an  avowal  of,  and  a persisting  in,  separa- 
tion or  independent  existence  of  the  respective  denomi- 

304 


FEDERATION  IN  PRACTICE  305 

nations.  In  other  words,  it  may  relate  but  it  does  not 
combine. 

Further  the  resolutions*  and  commissions  on  federa- 
tion have  not  completely  removed  from  the  Southern 
mind  the  idea  that  the  Southern  section  belongs  abso- 
lutely and  solely  to  the  Church  South.  So  the  extreme 
Southern  view  still  is  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  had,  and  has,  no  right  to  be  in  the  South,  that 
it  should  have  not  entered  the  South,  that  it  should  not 
now  be  in  the  South  but  that  it  should  go  out,  and  stay 
out,  of  the  South.  This  view  is  not  held  by  all,  but  in 
the  South  there  still  is  a pretty  general  feeling  that  fed- 
eration strictly  construed  means  that  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  has  no  rightful  place  in  the  South, 
that  it  should  depart  therefrom,  and  that  it  should  go 
at  once. 

Persons  with  such  views  continue  practically,  and 
actually,  to  assert  and  reassert  that  there  existed,  and 
that  there  now  exists,  a definite  geographical  line  of 
separation  between  the  proper  territory  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
and  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and 
they  reiterate  that  view,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that 
the  Church  South  has  not  restricted  itself  to  the  South- 
ern side  of  that  supposed  line,  and  that,  since  its  own 
action  of  1866,  declaring  there  was  no  dividing  line,  it 
could  not  fairly  maintain  any  such  claim  to  a geograph- 
ical barrier. 

When  these  extremists  declare  in  this  day  that  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  no  right  to  be  in  the 
South  and  demand  that  it  should  go  out  and  stay  out, 
they  fail  to  present  the  logical  corollary  that  the  Church 
South  should  go  out  and  stay  out  of  the  North,  though 


306 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


this  is  required  by  the  logic  of  their  declaration  if  it  is 
correct,  which  it  is  not.  The  theory  that  there  is  a 
definite  geographical  line  dividing  the  two  denomina- 
tions has  not  restrained  the  Church  South  from  invad- 
ing the  North,  and,  therefore,  it  cannot  be  used  legiti- 
mately to  keep  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  out  of  the  South. 

This  extreme  view  voices  the  sentiment  of  those  in 
the  Southern  body  who  would  federate  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  out  of  the  South  entirely. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  in  the  Church  South 
those  who,  while  they  wish  their  Church  had  complete 
possession  of  the  Southern  section,  nevertheless  realize 
the  impracticability  of  the  demand  that  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  abandon  its  extensive  interests  in  the 
South. 

With  this  failure  to  change  certain  old  views,  the 
best  that  can  be  said  for  what  is  called  Federation  is 
that  it  is  proposed  as  a modus  vivendi  by  which,  under 
some  regulation  or  understanding,  both  Churches  may 
work  in  the  same  sections  of  the  country. 

Here  the  question  arises  as  to  how  this  theory  and 
provision  for  proximity  of  occupation  has  worked  out 
in  practice?  If  Federation  has  not  harmonized  all 
views,  has  it  been  any  better  in  practical  operation  ? 
Candidly  the  so-called  federation  in  its  working  has 
been  very  disappointing. 

In  the  first  place  it  has  not  prevented  friction.  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  gone  into  parts  of  the 
South  and  the  Federation  Commissions  have  not  pre- 
vented dissatisfaction  on  the  part  of  the  Church  South, 
and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  gone  into 
places  where  the  Church  South  was  not  in  occupation 


FEDERATION  IN  PRACTICE 


307 


and  operation,  and,  though  there  was  no  interference 
with  the  actual  working  of  that  Church,  its  representa- 
tives were  not  satisfied. 

The  Southern  Church  has  certainly  gone  into  many 
places  where  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  en- 
tered first.  It  has  gone  into  the  city  of  Washington, 
which  was  not  in  any  of  the  withdrawing  Conferences 
in  1845.  It  went  into  Maryland,  which  adhered  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  It  went  north  of  the 
Ohio  River,  into  Illinois,  and  elsewhere,  and  established 
Churches  and  Annual  Conferences,  and  in  the  later 
years  has  been  endeavoring  to  expand  and  strengthen 
its  work  at  great  expenditure  of  money  and  effort. 
The  attempted  federation  has  not  prevented  that,  and 
has  not  tried  to  prevent  it. 

Then  in  places  in  the  South  where  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  had  gone  previously,  and  where  the 
Church  South  had  no  work,  the  Church  South  has  en- 
tered and  begun  competitive  operations. 

Into  various  portions  of  the  South,  Northern  and 
Western  people  have  gone  and  started  industries  and 
founded  towns  and  communities  where  the  Church 
South  did  not  exist,  and  they  have  the  Church  they 
were  accustomed  to  in  their  former  places  of  residence, 
and  have,  therefore,  started  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  but  the  Church  South  has  afterwards  entered 
such  places  though  they  are  about  as  Northern  as  if  they 
were  north  of  the  Ohio  River. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  at  this  point  the  right- 
ness of  these  things,  the  purpose  here  being  merely  to 
show  that  the  Commissions  on  Federation  have  not  pre- 
vented them  or  obviated  every  degree  of  friction. 

So  in  communities  where  the  Church  South  was 


308 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


actively  at  work  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has 
entered  because  Northern  people  wanted  that  Church 
or  because  Southern  people  preferred  and  desired  its 
ministrations,  and  many  of  the  most  devoted  members 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  South  are 
Southerners  “ to  the  manner  born,”  of  the  generations, 
some  soldiers  of  the  Civil  War  or  sons  and  daughters 
of  soldiers  who  fought  on  the  Southern  side. 

People  in  a free  land  have  a right  to  have  the 
Church  they  want  and  that  represents  their  views, 
and  these  people  in  the  South  have  a right  to  have 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  their  midst  if  they 
want  it.  But  here  and  there  in  the  South  where 
Methodist  Episcopalians,  or  those  who  desired  a 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  have  undertaken  to  as- 
sert their  right  and  liberty  to  establish  such  a Church 
which  met  their  own  ideas,  their  right  has  been  denied 
or  questioned,  and,  sometimes,  conflicts  of  considerable 
intensity  have  arisen.  These  things  the  federation  idea 
has  not  controlled  either  to  prevent  or  harmonize,  and 
one  may  doubt  whether  the  federation  suggestions  and 
the  general  resolutions  or  agreements  have  been  carried 
out  equitably  or  effectively.  Certainly  they  have  not 
produced  perfect  harmony  and  completely  controlled 
local  action  either  on  the  one  side  or  the  other. 

Too  much  should  not  be  attempted  in  the  way  of 
control  and  certain  principles  must  be  conceded.  Thus, 
on  general  principles,  the  people  of  a place  have  a right  to 
say  what  Church  they  wish,  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  has  a right  to  go  where  it  is  needed  and  can  do 
good,  and  the  same  may  be  said  for  other  Churches.  A 
so-called  federation  that  overrides  these  principles  is  not 
likely  to  make  for  genuine  peace  and  real  progress. 


XXVIII 


A PLAN  FOE  UNION 

IN  1896,  twenty  years  after  the  Cape  May  Commis- 
sion had  met  and  had  drawn  up  its  fraternal  agree- 
ment, the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  adopted  a plan  of  “Union  with  other 
Churches.” 

This  action  appeared  in  the  Appendix  to  the  Book  of 
Discipline  of  this  denomination  for  1896,  as  ^[18,  under 
the  title : “ Union  with  other  Churches.” 

It  reads : 

“ Whenever  any  Synod,  Conference,  Church  Society 
or  other  body  of  Christians,  agreeing  in  doctrine  with 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  shall  desire  to  become 
a component  part  of  said  Church,  the  Annual  Confer- 
ence of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  most  nearly 
or  conveniently  related,  territorially,  to  such  Synod, 
Conference,  Church  Society  or  body,  shall  have  power, 
with  the  consent  of  the  bishop  presiding,  on  being 
satisfied  with  the  agreement  of  such  Synod,  Confer- 
ence, Church  Society  or  body  of  Christians  with  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Doctrine  and  Discipline, 
to  receive  such  organization  in  a body  into  our  com- 
munion. 

“ Ministers,  so  received,  shall  hold  such  relations  and 
enjoy  such  privileges  as  they  would  hold  or  enjoy  if  ad- 
mitted individually  on  their  credentials.  Members,  so 
received,  shall  sustain  the  same  relation  to  the  local 

309 


310 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Church  they  would  sustain  if  received  individually  by 
certificates. 

“ Before  such  reception,  however,  a properly  authen- 
ticated register  of  such  ministers  and  members  shall  be 
deposited  with  the  secretary  of  the  Conference  consider- 
ing such  reception. 

In  all  cases  of  the  reception  of  Churches,  satisfac- 
tory assurance  shall  be  given  the  Conference  that  the 
property  shall  be  placed  in  the  custody  of  trustees  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  that  the  Churches  will 
receive  pastors  appointed  by  the  authority  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  said  Church.” 

This  was  a simple  and  easy  method  of  receiving  in- 
dividual societies  and  larger  organized  bodies  into  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  by  an  Annual  Conference, 
with  the  concurrence  of  the  presiding  bishop,  when  the 
society  or  body  agreed  with  the  Doctrines  and  Dis- 
cipline of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  very  much 
as  a pastor  and  a local  church  can  receive  an  individual 
member  on  proof  of  doctrinal  and  disciplinary  agreement. 

As  this  measure  was  reported  from  the  Committee  on 
Missions,  it  was  probably  intended  primarily  for  mis- 
sion fields,  but  it  was  phrased  for  general  application. 

Under  this  arrangement,  a wide-spread  denomination 
which  was  Methodistic  might  be  admitted  in  sections 
by  the  Annual  Conferences  and  bishops  of  the  respect- 
ive localities. 

Under  this  plan  the  Methodist  'Episcopal  Church, 
South,  and  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church,  if  they 
had  so  desired,  might  have  been  received  into  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  1896  or  any  year  since, 
for  the  action  remains  in  force  and  still  is  printed  in  the 
Appendix  to  the  Book  of  Discipline. 


XXIX 


INDEPENDENCE  AND  UNIFICATION  IN  JAPAN 

IN  the  meantime  appeals  had  been  made  in  a mis- 
sion field  beyond  the  Pacific  for  both  independence 
from  the  Mother  Church  and  also  for  unification 
with  other  Methodist  bodies.  This  was  in  Japan  where 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  began  mission  work  in 
the  year  1873.  This  was  the  year  of  the  mission  or- 
ganization. In  eleven  years  after  that,  namely  in  1884, 
the  mission  was  made  an  Annual  Conference. 

Only  four  years  later  this  Conference  in  Japan  was 
asking  for  autonomy  or  independence.  With  this  re- 
quest it  came  to  the  General  Conference  of  1888,  thus 
furnishing  a striking  demonstration  of  the  desire  even 
in  foreign  mission  fields  for  self-government  and  inde- 
pendence, a desire  which  is  likely  to  assert  itself  more  and 
more  as  the  native  Churches  become  stronger  and  the 
national  spirit  has  a greater  opportunity  to  assert  itself. 

To  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  1888  the^' Keverend  Dr.  K.  S.  Maclay  pre- 
sented a memorial  from  the  Japan  Conference  concern- 
ing the  organic  union  of  Methodism  in  Japan,  and  this 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Missions. 

The  Preachers’  Meeting  of  Philadelphia  sent  a 
memorial  to  this  General  Conference  concerning  the 
autonomy  of  Methodism  in  Japan  which  was  referred 
to  the  same  committee. 

Also  through  the  New  York  delegation  a memorial 

311 


312 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


signed  by  C.  W.  Green,  relating  to  a basis  of  union  for 
the  different  Methodist  organizations  of  Japan,  was 
presented  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  State 
of  the  Church. 

Similar  memorials  were  presented  through  the  dele- 
gations from  other  American  Conferences  and  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Missions. 

On  the  evening  of  May  30, 1888,  the  Committee  on 
Missions  reported  on  this  subject  in  the  session  of  the 
Conference  held  in  Saint  Paul’s  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  in  New  York  City.  The  discussion  not  having 
been  concluded  at  that  session  it  was  resumed  at  the 
regular  place  of  meeting  the  next  morning,  the  31st  of 
May,  and  at  that  time  was  adopted. 

In  the  resolutions  then  agreed  to  this  body  said: 
“That  this  General  Conference  will  not  interpose 
any  objections  to  the  Japanese  Methodists  declaring 
themselves  independent  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  nor  will  they  object  to  their  uniting  themselves 
with  any  or  all  other  forms  of  Methodism  that  now 
exist  or  may  exist  in  Japan,  the  same  to  be  done  ac- 
cording to  the  general  basis  of  union  proposed.” 

Then  followed  the  plan  for  carrying  out  this  per- 
mission and  declaration  and  provisions  for  the  protec- 
tion of  property  and  for  the  care  of  the  American 
missionaries,  which  plan,  among  other  items,  contained 
the  following : 

“That  whenever  it  shall  be  made  evident  to  the 
bishop  in  charge  of  Japan  and  to  the  Board  of  Mana- 
gers of  the  Missionary  Society  that  it  is  the  desire  of 
the  Methodists  of  Japan  to  be  so  declared  independent, 
and  wherever  arrangements  satisfactory  to  said  Board 
of  Managers  and  bishops  shall  have  been  made,  secur- 


INDEPENDENCE  IN  JAPAN 


313 


ing  the  real  estate  in  Japan  of  the  Missionary  Society 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the  said  bishops 
and  Board  shall  proceed  to  make  all  the  arrangements 
necessary  to  the  independence  of  said  Church  and  its 
union  with  the  Canada  Methodist  Missions  or  any  other 
Methodist  Missions  in  Japan. 

“ That  in  case,  during  the  present  quadrennial  period, 
the  Methodist  Church  of  Japan  shall  be  created  in 
harmony  with  the  spirit  and  purpose  of  this  action,  the 
General  Missionary  Committee  and  Board  may  con- 
tinue, under  proper  regulations,  appropriations  and 
payments  to  the  work  in  Japan,  and  that  our  people  in 
this  country  be  encouraged  to  continue  to  manifest 
their  interest  in  the  evangelical,  educational,  publishing, 
and  other  work  in  that  country.” 

Not  only  was  this  an  authorization  of  independence 
for  Japan  but  it  was  also  a recognition  of  the  right  of 
this  foreign  conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  to  make  itself  independent  of  the  Mother 
Church.  So  the  General  Conference  of  1888  said  it 
would  “ not  interpose  any  objections  to  the  Japanese 
Methodists  declaring  themselves  independent.”  Neither 
would  it  ‘‘  object  to  their  uniting  themselves  with  any 
or  all  other  forms  of  Methodism  ...  in  Japan,  the 
same  to  be  done  according  to  the  general  basis  of  union 
proposed.” 

Though  this  permission  was  granted,  and  the  right 
conceded,  the  desired  independence  was  not  effected 
under  this  act.  The  project  was  not  carried  out  be- 
cause the  terms  were  not  met  in  some  particular,  the 
prevailing  opinion  being  that  it  failed  because  of  the 
non-concurrence  of  the  bishop  in  charge  of  the  Japan 
Conference  at  that  time. 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


311 

At  the  ensuing  General  Conference,  that  of  1892,  a 
memorial  on  the  same  subject  came  from  the  Japan 
Conference  but  no  definite  action  was  taken.  The 
movement  for  independence  and  union  was  quiescent 
until  1904,  when  in  the  General  Conference  of  that  year 
there  was  presented  from'  Japan  several  memorials  in 
regard  to  organic  union  in  that  country,  which  memo- 
rials were  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Missions. 

That  Committee  reported  on  the  “ Unification  of 
Methodism  in  Japan  ” as  follows  : 

“ On  the  unification  of  Methodist  bodies  in  Japan  we 
would  respectfully  recommend : 

“1.  That  we  recognize  the  desirability  of  the  union 
of  the  several  Methodist  bodies  in  Japan. 

“ 2.  That  all  papers  submitted  to  this  General  Con- 
ference on  the  subject  of  Methodist  union  be  referred 
to  a commission  of  five,  to  consist  of  one  bishop,  the 
corresponding  secretary  of  the  Missionary  Society,  and 
three  other  members,  two  of  whom  shall  be  laymen, 
to  be  appointed  by  the  Board  of  Bishops. 

“ 3.  That  said  commission  shall  have  full  power  to 
confer  with  similar  commissions  appointed  by  other 
Methodist  bodies  proposing  to  enter  into  the  union, 
and  to  take  final  action  in  the  adoption  of  a plan  of 
unification,  provided  it  shall  secure  the  approval  of 
four  out  of  the  five  commissioners ; and  provided, 
further,  that  in  case  a plan  of  union  is  agreed  upon  by 
our  own  and  one  other  of  the  negotiating  bodies  said 
plan  of  union  may  be  adopted  without  further  legisla- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.” 

This  was  adopted  by  the  General  Conference  on  the 
twenty-first  day  of  May,  1904,  and  thus  the  independ- 


INDEPENDENCE  IN  JAPAN 


315 


ence  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  its  Japan 
Mission  was  provided  for,  and  also  its  combination  with 
missions  of  other  Methodist  bodies  in  the  Japanese 
Empire. 

This  separation  of  the  Japan  Mission  from  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  and  its  union  with  the  Japanese 
Mission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and 
that  of  the  Methodist  Church  of  Canada  in  Japan,  was 
consummated  in  1907. 

The  story  at  length  is  told  in  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mission presented  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  General 
Conference  of  1908,  as  printed  in  connection  with  the 
Journal  of  that  body,  where  the  document  covers 
thirty-three  octavo  pages. 

The  narrative  recites  that : 

“As  early  as  1887  the  missionaries  and  native 
preachers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the 
Methodist  Church  of  Canada  in  Japan,  agreed  upon  a 
tentative  plan  for  the  union  of  the  missions  of  said 
Churches  into  a Japanese  Methodist  Church,  which 
plan  was  referred  to  our  General  Conference  in  1888, 
with  several  memorials  praying  for  its  acceptance.” 

Kef  erring  to  the  approval  given  by  that  General 
Conference,  the  report  notes  that  the  mission  in  Japan 
was  “ advised  to  earnestly  seek  a union  with  all  the 
bodies  of  Methodists  in  Japan,  and  the  bishops  and 
Board  of  Managers  of  the  Missionary  Society  were  di- 
rected to  make  all  arrangements  for  the  ‘independ- 
ence ’ of  the  Methodist  Church  of  Japan  whenever  it 
should  appear  to  the  bishop  in  charge  of  the  Mission 
and  to  the  Board  of  Managers  that  it  was  ‘ the  desire 
of  the  Methodists  in  Japan  to  be  so  declared  independ- 
ent,’ ” and  then,  referring  to  the  fact  that  the  arrange- 


316 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


ment  was  not  carried  out  at  that  time,  the  report  ob- 
serves : 

“ Whether  this  well-laid  plan  failed  through  provi- 
dential interposition  or  human  obstruction  may  not  here 
be  discussed ; but  the  conditions  that  made  for  such  a 
movement  did  not  change.” 

Hence  the  action  of  1904  and  the  appointment  of  the 
Commission  which  had  performed  its  duty  “ resulting 
by  God’s  favor  and  guidance  in  the  organization  of  the 
Methodist  Church  of  Japan.” 

Then  follows  a recital  of  the  different  and  progressive 
acts  that  led  to  the  coming  together  in  Tokyo,  on  the 
twenty-second  day  of  May,  1907,  of  the  delegates 
elected  by  the  several  Annual  Conferences  concerned, 
“ for  the  purpose  of  organizing  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Church  of  Japan  under  the  plan  fixed 
by  the  Basis  of  Union.” 

A Discipline  having  been  prepared  and  approved, 
the  Conference  on  the  first  day  of  June,  1907,  being 
Saturday,  proceeded  to  the  election  of  a bishop,  or 
Kantokxi^  and  Y.  Honda,  the  President  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Aoyama  College,  was  chosen  to  that 
office,  and  the  next  day,  Sunday,  was  duly  consecrated, 
and  on  Monday  took  the  chair  and  presided  over  the 
General  Conference  of  the  new  Church  composed  of 
those  in  Japan  who  had  belonged  to  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  and  the  Methodist  Church  of  Canada.  Thus 
Methodist  Missions  in  Japan  were  made  independent 
of  their  mother  Churches  in  North  America  and  were 
unified  in  one  Church  in  this  foreign  land,  and  thus 
came  into  existence  the  Nippon  Methodist  Kyokwai, 
or  in  English,  the  Methodist  Church  of  Japan. 


INDEPENDENCE  IN  JAPAN 


317 


The  main  legal  principle  involved  in  this  was  that 
the  work  was  on  foreign  soil.  As  in  the  case  of  Canada 
the  territory  was  under  a foreign  political  jurisdiction 
and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  did  not  have  quite  the  same  relation 
to  and  control  of  work  not  within  or  under  the  juris- 
diction of  the  United  States  of  America  as  it  had  re- 
lation to  and  control  of  territory  for  denominational 
work  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  of 
America. 

This  difference  of  relationship  and  control  was  recog- 
nized in  the  matter  of  the  independence  of  the  Canadian 
Methodist  Episcopalians  in  1828  when  the  General  Con- 
ference by  formal  action  recognized  that  the  Canada 
Annual  Conference  was  “ under  a foreign  government,’^ 
and  therefore  declared  : “ This  General  Conference  dis- 
claims all  right  to  exercise  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction 
under  such  circumstances  except  by  mutual  agreement ; 
therefore,  Kesolved  . . . that  the  compact  existing 

between  the  Canada  Annual  Conference  and  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  be,  and 
hereby  is,  dissolved  by  mutual  consent,  and  that  they 
are  at  liberty  to  form  themselves  into  a separate  Church 
establishment,”  etc. 

In  other  words  the  work  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  a foreign  land  and  under  a foreign  govern- 
ment has  a different  status  from  that  in  the  United 
States  of  America  and  the  territory  does  not  have  the 
same  relation  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as 
does  the  territory  in  the  home  land  which  is  the  United 
States  of  America. 

So  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  could  do  in  and  for  its  mission  work. 


318 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


within  and  under  some  foreign  political  jurisdiction, 
what  could  not  be  done  in,  for,  or  with  any  territorial 
section  in,  or  under  the  government  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  and  the  people  in  the  foreign  land  could 
do  for  themselves  what  similar  people  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  the  home  land  of  the  Church,  could 
not  do  in  the  same  way.  In  the  foreign  land  the  min- 
isters and  members  could  become  independent  and  con- 
trol their  work  in  their  own  territory,  while  in  the  home 
land,  the  United  States  of  America,  no  section  could 
legally  become  independent  and  the  General  Conference 
could  not  set  off  and  make  independent  any  territorial 
section.  The  Church  might  allow  individuals,  whether 
few  or  many,  to  withdraw  by  letter  or  otherwise,  or 
the  individuals  could  use  their  personal  liberty  but  the 
Church  could  not  set  off  any  territorial  part  or  abso- 
lutely abandon  a section.  In  the  nation  it  has  been  de- 
cided that,  though  individuals  may  leave  the  country 
and  cease  to  be  citizens,  no  state  or  any  number  of 
states  in  a section  can  become  independent  and  set  up 
another  national  government  within  that  territory  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  and  so  with  the  Church 
there  is  a similar  unity  of  jurisdiction  over  the  entire 
United  States,  and  there  is  no  way  of  limiting  the 
Church  of  the  United  States  from  any  part  of  the 
United  States  of  America.  Individuals  or  bodies  of  in- 
dividuals may  go  from  it  but  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  still  continues 
to  embrace  the  entire  United  States  of  America  though 
it  may  not  have  the  allegiance  of  all  the  people  in  this 
country. 

The  case  of  Japan  is  parallel  with  the  independence 
of  the  Conference  in  Canada,  the  right  to  autonomy  or 


INDEPENDENCE  IN  JAPAN 


319 


independence  in  each  case  being  based  on  the  fact  that 
the  Conference  was  on  foreign  soil  and  not  in  the 
United  States  of  America  and  not  under  the  govern- 
ment of  this  country ; while  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  was  primarily,  and  strictly  speaking,  a Church 
of  and  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

While,  therefore,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
must  keep  itself  and  its  territory  intact  in  the  United 
States  of  America  because  it  is  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  it  has  a freer 
hand  and  a somewhat  different  control  over  its  missions 
in  foreign  lands.  As  long  as  these  foreign  missions  re- 
main connected  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America,  they  must  be  governed 
by  it,  but  it  may  detach  the  foreign  mission  and  make 
it  independent,  or  the  foreign  mission  may  receive  or 
assert  its  independence  and  become  a Church  of  its  own 
country,  and  so  foreign  missions,  because  they  are  un- 
der other  national  governments,  and  for  various  reasons, 
may  become  self-governing  Churches  of  their  ov/n 
lands,  and  it  is  possible  in  time  that  all  its  foreign  mis- 
sions shall  become  independent  and  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  the  great  Mother  Church,  will  be 
geographically,  as  well  as  legally,  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

How  soon  this  may  come  or  exactly  why  it  may 
come,  we  need  not  determine  at  this  moment,  but  that 
it  may  come,  and  legally  could  come,  is  shown  by  the 
independence  of  the  Canada  Conference  in  1828,  and 
the  independence  of  the  Japan  Mission  and  its  merging 
with  other  Methodisms  in  Japan  and  the  forming  of  a 
new  Methodist  Church  of  Japan  in  1907. 

For  such  separation  and  independence  there  may  be 


320 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


inherent  reasons  and  there  may  be  a necessity  growing 
out  of  peculiar  circumstances.  Thus  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1828,  in  considering  the  case  of  Canada,  re- 
ferred to  “ the  difficulties  under  which  they  labor  in 
consequence  of  their  union  with  a foreign  ecclesiastical 
government.”  To  the  Canadians  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  was  “ a 
foreign  ecclesiastical  government.”  To  the  Japanese 
it  was  the  same,  and  in  both  cases  there  were  patriotic, 
as  well  as  prudential  reasons,  underlying  the  desire  for 
independence. 

In  case  of  war  between  the  two  countries,  which  we 
only  suppose  for  the  pui’pose  of  illustration,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  foreign  Church  would  be  in  an  awkward 
situation.  If,  for  example,  there  was  war  between  the 
Dominion  and  the  United  States,  or  between  Japan  and 
the  United  States  (which  may  the  Lord  forbid !),  the 
Canadian  members  or  the  Japanese  members  of  “ a for- 
eign ecclesiastical  government  ” in  the  United  States  of 
America  would  be  under  suspicion  of  their  government 
as  belonging  to  the  Church  of  the  enemy,  and  would 
be  suspected  by  their  people  of  sympathy  with  the 
enemy,  but  a self-governing  Church  within,  and  of, 
their  own  nation  would  allow  a free  appeal  to  patriot- 
ism and  give  it  the  protective  sympathy  of  the  people 
and  of  their  national  government.] 

Many  other  reasons  might  be  given  by  a people  in 
favor  of  self-government  but  the  present  point  is  that 
the  independence  of  missions  in  foreign  lands  is  not 
only  possible  but  actual. 


XXX 


THE  FEDEEAL  COUNCIL  OF  THE  METHODIST 
EPISCOPAL  CHUECH  AND  THE  METHOD- 
IST EPISCOPAL  CHUECH,  SOUTH 

From  the  word  fraternity  to  the  use  of  the  word 
federation  seems  a natural  and  easy  evolution 
in  the  dealings  between  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

Fraternity  was  readily  understood,  but  the  exact 
force  of  the  word  federation  was  never  distinctly  set 
forth  or  clearly  comprehended.  As  far  as  the  technical 
and  philological  interpretation  of  the  term  federation 
was  concerned  there  could  hardly  be  said  to  have  been 
any  real  federation.  Strictly  speaking  the  word  was 
used  in  an  accommodated  sense  which  greatly  weak- 
ened the  natural  and  logical  definition  of  the  term. 
Certainly  there  was  no  such  coming  together  of  the 
two  Churches  so  that  they  combined  in  one  govern- 
ment as  did  the  colonies  or  states  in  the  early  period  of 
the  United  States. 

The  best  that  can  be  said  for  it  is  that  the  two 
Churches,  through  committees,  called  Commissions  on 
Federation,  sought  to  reduce  friction  and  promote 
harmony  in  the  working  of  the  two  denominations  at 
points  of  contact.  In  other  words  it  was  a sort  of 
lubricating  agency  to  make  the  machinery  run  smoothly, 
but,  strictly  speaking,  it  was  not  a federation  and  it  did 
not  mean  a union  of  the  two  Churches  in  any  sense. 

321 


322 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


When  the  two  commissions  met  together  they  formed 
a joint  commission  but  it,  like  the  denominational  com- 
mission, had  little  or  no  power  and  anything  that  was 
proposed  by  the  single  commission  or  the  joint  com- 
mission, had  to  be  referred  to  the  two  General  Confer- 
ences for  decision. 

After  the  denominational  commissions  had  been  tried 
for  some  years  there  was  suggested  an  additional  and 
ingenious  device  that  whether  suspected  or  not  con- 
tained vast  potentialities,  and  was  calculated,  or  in- 
tended, to  ultimate  in  a comprehensive  and  powerful 
controlling  body.  This  suggestion  was  to  create  a 
joint  body,  to  be  called  The  Federal  Council. 

This  was  a new  name  and  was  a new  title  for  a new 
development  that  contemplated  a bod}^  with  greater 
functions  than  any  that  had  preceded.  The  evolution 
was  making  progress.  Beginning  with  fraternity,  then 
passing  to  federation,  the  forces  were  to  flower  in  the 
Federal  Council. 

The  suggestion  would  seem  to  have  emanated  from 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  for  it  was 
adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  that  Church  in 
1906,  and  then  agreed  to  in  1908  by  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

The  title  of  the  new  organization  seemed  to  grow  out 
of  the  word  federation,  but  federal  was,  if  anything,  a 
stronger  word  and  idea  than  a qualified  federation. 
The  Federal  Council  aimed  at  something  far  beyond 
what  had  been  covered  by  the  “ Commission  on  Federa- 
tion,” and  the  advance  in  the  bolder  title  was  indicative 
of  an  advance  in  power,  as  well  as  in  the  name  of  the 
proposed  organization. 

Federation  was  now  too  weak  a term  and  the  stronger 


THE  FEDERAL  COUNCIL 


323 


word  federal  was  employed.  Federation  was  involved 
in  it,  but  federal  involved  so  much  more  that  one  might 
imagine  that  a Federal  Council  implied  that  the  two 
denominations  were  combined  in  one  government  of 
which  the  Federal  Council  was  its  exponent  and  that 
the  federated  denominations  were  subordinate  to  the 
little  Federal  Council  as  a confederacy  would  be  subor- 
dinate to  its  Congress.  It  is  more  than  probable  that 
neither  Church  suspected  this  or  comprehended  the  pur- 
pose in  the  minds  of  the  few  who  were  putting  together 
this  potential  engine  of  government. 

The  suggestion  was  to  continue  the  Commissions  on 
Federation  and  let  them  go  on  as  before  separately  or 
as  a joint  commission,  but  for  certain  purposes  to  bring 
the  two  commissions  together  as  a Federal  Council ; so 
that  though  composed  of  the  same  persons  in  the 
joint  commission,  yet  with  different  functions  and 
powers  when  acting  as  the  Federal  Council. 

The  action  passed  by  the  General  Conferences  of 
both  Churches,  one  in  1906  and  the  other  in  1908,  in- 
stituted “ a Federal  Council  for  these  two  Churches, 
which,  without  interfering  with  the  autonomy  of  the 
respective  Churches  and  having  no  legislative  functions, 
shall  yet  be  invested  with  advisory  powers  in  regard  to 
world-wide  missions,  Christian  education,  the  evangel- 
ization of  the  unchurched  masses,  and  the  charitable 
and  brotherly  adjustment  of  all  misunderstandings  and 
conflicts  that  may  arise  between  the  different  Churches 
of  Methodism.”  That  was  a very  ambitious  pro- 
gramme. The  Federal  Council  was  to  have  power 
of  an  advisory  character  over  nearly  everything  in 
the  Church — missions,  education,  and  evangelization. 
So  comprehensive  is  this  that  it  seems  that  the  Boards 


324 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


and  Societies  and  officers  charged  with  these  things 
would  have  protested  had  they  realized  what  was 
involved. 

Then  the  Council  was  to  bring  about  an  “ adjustment 
of  all  misunderstandings  and  conflicts  that  may  arise 
between  the  different  Churches  of  Methodism^  It 
would  be  quite  an  undertaking  to  compose  differences 
between  the  two  denominations  having  the  Federal 
Council,  but  to  do  this  for  all  the  denominations  of 
Methodism  was  establishing  a patronizing  and  pretty 
pretentious  protectorate  over  the  other  Methodistic 
bodies  which  the  other  Churches  would  probably 
resent. 

That  was  only  the  beginning,  and  the  evolution  was 
to  go  on.  The  two  federation  commissions  met  in 
April,  1910,  and  recommending  that  the  former  action 
in  regard  to  the  Federal  Council  be  amended  and  this 
was  agreed  to  by  the  next  General  Conferences,  the 
Church  South  in  1910  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
in  1912. 

The  changes  reveal  the  inner  possibilities  of  the  ar- 
rangement and  the  startling  development  of  power. 
The  advisory  power  over  the  general  work  of  the 
Church  remained  the  same.  The  words  “ without 
interfering  with  the  autonomy  of  the  respective 
Churches  and  having  no  legislative  functions  ” were 
taken  out,  which  raises  the  question  whether  the 
Federal  Council  in  the  future  might  attempt  leg- 
islation and  interfere  with  the  autonomy  of  the 
two  Churches.  The  words  “and  the  charitable  and 
brotherly  adjustment  of  all  misunderstandings  and 
conflicts  that  may  arise  between  the  different  Churches 
of  Methodism  are  eliminated.  It  was,  therefore,  no 


THE  FEDERAL  COUNCIL 


325 


longer  to  be  merely  a “ brotherly  adjustment,”  but 
there  is  a new  grasp  at  authority  and  a stronger  asser- 
tion of  power,  so  that  it  read  : “ to  have  full  power  to 
hear  and  determine  finally,  without  appeal  from  its  de- 
cisions, all  cases  of  conflict  or  misunderstandings  be- 
tween the  two  branches  of  Methodism.” 

That  looks  like  a cou])  diktat.  The  same  astute 
minds  seemed  to  be  developing  a plan  to  unite  the  two 
Churches  without  uniting  them  legally,  and  without  the 
denominations  knowing  what  was  being  done.  Suddenly 
the  little  Federal  Council  is  clothed  with  “ full  power  ” 
and  when  it  makes  its  decisions  the  parties  concerned 
are  to  be  “ without  appeal.”  Lo ! it  claims  to  be  a 
power  above  the  General  Conference,  and  the  chair- 
man of  the  Committee  on  Church  Relations  in  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Church  South,  in  1914,  as- 
serted that  the  Federal  Council  was  “ a Supreme  Court 
beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  either  General  Conference.” 
So  the  General  Conference  was  to  be  powerless,  unable 
to  hear  a protest  or  to  right  a wrong.  The  final  power 
of  the  General  Conference  was  to  be  taken  from  it  and 
transferred  to  a few  men  who  though  bearing  the  lofty 
title  of  Federal  Council  were  really  nothing  more  than 
a committee  of  a General  Conference  or  of  two  General 
Conferences. 

The  arrangement  was  inequitable  for  it  was  not  fair 
to  put  individual  and  Church  rights,  including  property 
rights,  at  the  mercy  of  a few  men  acting  in  any  such 
way,  and,  furthermore,  the  provision  “ without  appeal  ” 
is  unconstitutional,  for  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
Church  the  right  of  appeal  is  guaranteed,  and  even  the 
humblest  individual  in  the  Church  cannot  be  deprived 
of  the  right  of  appeal,  and  if  the  individual  cannot  be 


326 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


so  deprived  neither  can  the  local  Church  with  its  prop- 
erty and  other  rights  be  denied  an  appeal.  The  Gen- 
eral Conference  cannot  deny  the  right,  and  the  General 
Conference  has  no  right  to  create  a body  superior  to 
itself.  The  right  of  appeal  persists  even  if  ‘‘  without 
appeal’’  has  been  written  into  the  act,  and,  w^hat  is 
more,  the  individual  and  the  local  Church  may  have 
recourse  to  the  civil  courts. 

One  must  assume  that  the  General  Conferences  did 
not  perceive  the  comprehensive  scope  of  this  arrange- 
ment for  a Federal  Council.  Probably  very  few  out- 
side of  those  who  drew  up  the  plan  noticed  it  even  in  a 
casual  way,  and  possibly  those  who  framed  it  did  not 
realize  its  full  force.  In  all  probability  the  most  of  the 
delegates  looked  upon  it  in  an  indefinite  way,  and  pre- 
sumed it  was  simply  to  carry  out  the  fraternal  idea  and 
to  endeavor  to  make  a “ brotherly  adjustment  ” of  pos- 
sible difficulties,  but  few  could  have  thought  it  had 
such  a power  in  relation  to  the  great  educational,  evan- 
gelistic, and  missionary  work  of  the  two  denominations, 
and,  particularly,  that  it  was  to  be  all-powerful  in  de- 
ciding questions  of  right,  so  that  no  aggrieved  party 
could  make  an  appeal. 

As  a matter  of  fact,  the  record  of  the  1912  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  shows 
that,  if  it  had  any,  it  was  only  a very  hasty  considera- 
tion, and  that  on  it  there  was  absolutely  no  debate.  It 
was  presented  at  the  closing  period  of  the  Conference 
when  reports  were  being  rushed  through  with  little  if 
any  deliberation,  and  the  report  was  not  explained  or 
discussed. 

That  the  method  is  impracticable  is  seen  in  the  fact 
that  this  Federal  Council  could  not  enforce  its  own  do* 


THE  FEDERAL  COUNCIL 


327 


crees  and  its  decisions,  therefore,  would  be  impotent. 
It  is  no  wonder  in  view  of  all  these  facts  that  when  the 
very  first  case  was  presented  to  the  Federal  Councils 
the  difficulties  of  operation  were  so  great  that  the 
Council  reached  no  decision  but  agreed  to  hold  no  more 
meetings  until  the  General  Conferences  of  the  two  de- 
nominations, in  1916  and  1918,  review  the  subject. 

The  probability  is  that  the  Federal  Council  arrange- 
ment will  have  to  be  recast  or  totally  abandoned,  for 
when  the  denominations  realize  the  possible  dangers  of 
a small  body  so  empowered  as  to  advise  about  almost 
everything,  and  the  people  perceive  that  it  can  dictate 
as  to  property  and  other  vested  rights,  it  is  more  than 
likely  that  they  will  demand  that  it  be  divested  of  its 
presumptive  powers,  if  indeed  they  do  not  absolutely 
destroy  its  existence  even  in  name. 


XXXI 


PENDING  SUGGESTIONS  OF  UNION 
ERTAIN  suggestions  of  denominational  union 


are  now  pending  before  several  bodies,  par- 


^ ticularly  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  the  Methodist 
Protestant  Church. 

The  most  conspicuous  proposition  is  one  that  grew 
out  of  the  deliberations  of  a joint  commission  made  up 
of  the  Commissions  on  Federation  of  the  above  men- 
tioned bodies. 

This  joint  commission  met  in  Baltimore  in  1910  and 
took  steps  towards  the  formulation  of  a suggestion  of  a 
method  of  union. 

Later,  in  1911,  the  joint  commission  issued  a tenta- 
tive outline  suggestion  that  might  be  considered  as  a 
proposed  basis  for  union,  though  the  members  of  the 
joint  commission  did  not  commit  themselves  to  it,  and 
it  is  said  did  not  regard  it  as  a plan  of  union.  Indeed 
the  joint  commission  by  formal  resolution  said  it  should 
not  be  regarded  as  a plan,  but  merely  as  indicative  of 
“the  result”  of  the  commission’s  “exploration  in 
search  of  a basis  of  union.” 

Emanating  from  this  joint  commission  even  in  this 
indefinite  form  the  supreme  bodies  of  the  respective 
Churches  were  at  liberty  to  take  it  up  for  consideration, 
but  they  were  under  no  obligation  to  regard  it  as  a 
formulated  and  matured  plan  of  union. 


328 


PENDING  SUGGESTIONS  OF  UNION  329 


The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  which  convened  in  May,  1912,  did  not  pass  upon 
it,  or  even  hear  it  read,  and  the  commissioners  of  this 
Church  did  not  regard  it  as  “a  plan.” 

The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Church,  which  met  in  the  same  month  of  the  same 
year  favored  it  as  a “ tentative  plan  ” but  took  no  def- 
inite action  on  the  suggestion  looking  to  reorganization. 

Two  years  later,  namely,  in  May,  1914,  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
took  action  on  the  report  of  the  joint  commission  say- 
ing that  it  “ considers  the  plan  outlined  in  the  sugges- 
tions ...  as  tentative  ” and  “ hereby  declares  it- 
self in  favor  of  the  unification  ...  in  accordance 
with  this  general  plan  of  reorganization  . . . after 

it  has  been  accepted  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.” 

Because  of  this  action  it  would  seem  that  the  prop- 
osition has  been  by  some  attributed  to  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  though  it  came  from  the  joint 
commission,  and,  though,  two  years  previously  it  had 
been  agreed  to  by  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Protestant  Church,  which  was  the  first  body 
to  give  its  existence  formal  recognition. 

It  will  also  be  noted  that  the  acceptance  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  the  Church  South  of  the  “ tenta- 
tive ” suggestion  was  not  unqualified,  but  was  condi- 
tioned upon  its  acceptance  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  So  it  declared  itself  “ in  favor  of  the  unifica- 
tion ” “ after  it  had  been  accepted  by  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  ” and  the  agreement,  therefore,  was 
not  in  effect  until  the  plan  had  been  agreed  to  by  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 


330 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


This  so-called  “ tentative  plan  ” proposes  that  the  ter- 
ritory of  the  combining  Churches,  if  they  do  combine, 
shall  be  divided  into  great  sections,  one  of  which  shall 
be  made  up  of  what  has  been  known  as  the  “ South,” 
which  sections  shall  be  self-governing,  making  their 
own  laws  and  electing  their  own  bishops,  each  section 
having  its  own  quadrennial  jurisdictional  Conference. 

Then  it  is  proposed  to  have  over  all  an  indefinite 
body,  or  practically  undefined  General  Conference,  the 
time  for  the  meeting  of  which  is  undesignated,  to  have 
‘‘  power  over  all  matters  distinctly  connectional  ” which 
have  not  been  left  to  the  quadrennial  conferences,  and 
to  confirm  those  elected  bishops,  and  the  “ tentative  ” 
scheme  suggests  “ that  neither  the  General  Conference 
nor  any  of  the  quadrennial  conferences  be  invested  with 
final  authority  to  interpret  the  constitutionality  of  its 
own  actions  ” but  nothing  is  said  as  to  where  such  in- 
terpretative power  shall  be  vested.  Presumably  it  will 
be  somewhere  outside  of  the  imaginative  General  Con- 
ference. This  ghostly  scheme  is  so  crude  that  it  is 
neither  a plan  nor  the  basis  of  a plan. 

The  general  criticism  upon  the  document  will  prob- 
ably be  that  it  is  too  indefinite  as  to  important  partic- 
ulars, and  leaves  so  many  things  unstated  or  unsettled, 
that  the  majority  of  thinkers  could  not  agree  to  it  be- 
cause no  one  could  certainly  tell  what  would  be  the  out- 
come or  what  might  be  worked  into  such  a skeleton 
suggestion.  Indeed  the  skeleton  stands  out  so  sug- 
gestively that  it  is  likely  to  frighten  away  many  friends 
of  real  union. 

The  one  thing  that  is  manifest  is  that  this  professed 
union  does  propose  that  the  Church  shall  be  divided 
into  practically  or  actually  self-governing  geographical 


PENDING  SUGGESTIONS  OF  UNION  331 

sections,  one  in  the  South,  and  others  in  the  North  and 
West. 

Such  an  arrangement  might  seem  desirable  to  some 
in  tne  old  South  as  it  would  keep  that  section  intact, 
but  the  North  and  West  will  probably  reject  such  an 
adjustment  because  it  would  sectionalize  them  in  the 
Church  and  in  the  nation,  and  practically  or  actually 
destroy  the  territorial,  as  well  as  the  sentimental  unity 
of  the  ecclesiasticism.  Hence  it  would  no  longer  be 
truly  a nation-wide  Church  with  the  same  laws  every- 
where. 

So  they  would  be  likely  to  hold  that,  instead  of 
uniting,  it  would  be  dividing  the  Church,  for  the  result 
would  not  really  be  a unity  in  a homogeneous  Church 
of  the  whole  country,  but  a series  of  sectional  bodies 
connected  by  a rope  of  sand  and  that  an  invisible  one, 
excepting  to  persons  possessed  of  most  powerful  imagina- 
tions who  might  fancy  they  could  see  it  through  the 
medium  of  a mythical  General  Conference  meeting  no 
one  knows  when  or  where,  and,  if  it  does  meet,  possess- 
ing little  or  no  authority. 

Many  also  will  object  because  while  the  other 
Churches  would  be  broken  into  sections,  the  South  would  ^ 
be  consolidated  and  the  same  ‘‘  South  ” would  control 
the  South.  So  while  the  historic  and  nation-wide 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  any  other  Church,  in 
the  arrangement  would  be  shattered  and  broken  up  into 
sectional  governments,  practically  all  the  supposed  or 
possible  advantage  would  be  with  what  had  been  the 
Church  South.  Thus  Methodist  Episcopalians  already 
oppose  the  proposal  because  it  would  actually  divide 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  instead  of  being  a 
real  union  would  be  one  of  the  worst  forms  of  disunion. 


332 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


In  like  manner,  and  for  various  reasons  persons 
prominent  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
raise  objections  to  the  suggested  method  of  union  by 
dissolution. 

One  leading  minister  in  that  Church  wants  the 
quadrennial  conferences  eliminated  and  the  single  Gen- 
eral Conference  for  the  whole  Church  perpetuated. 

Some,  indeed,  deny  that  the  Church  South  wants  the 
“ plan  ” at  all ; and  one  of  its  noted  ministers  calls  the 
action  of  its  General  Conference  on  this  matter  a 
“ freak  action.” 

One  of  the  strongest  objections  to  what  is  supposed 
generally  to  be  a new  tentative  suggestion  is  that  it  is 
not  new  at  all.  On  the  contrary  it  is  an  old  Southern 
idea  that  has  never  been  acceptable  to  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church. 

Its  origin  can  be  traced  back  to  a Southern  leader  in 
the  historic  General  Conference  of  1844-.  In  that  Con- 
ference Doctor  Capers,  afterwards  Bishop  Capers  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  offered  what  was  es- 
sentially the  same  proposition.  His  proposal  was  to 
have  a Northern  body  with  its  own  General  Con- 
ference and  a Southern  body  with  its  General  Con- 
ference, making  two  self-governing  bodies  with  a com- 
mon relationship  in  certain  practical  operations.  The 
General  Conference  of  1844,  however,  would  not  ac- 
cept the  proposition,  for  it  perceived  that  it  meant  a 
radical  division  making  two  independent  Churches.  In 
some  form  this  idea  has  been  revamped  from  time  to 
time  and  now  has  been  renewed  in  what  is  called  the 
“ tentative  plan  ” of  1911,  allowed  to  go  forth  from  the 
joint  commission  and  approved  in  1912  by  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church,  and, 


PENDING  SUGGESTIONS  OF  UNION  333 


in  some  sense,  in  1914  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South.  Though  varying  in  some  details  it  is 
merely  a modification  of  the  Capers’  plan  of  1844  which 
was  presented  on  what  proved  to  be  the  eve  of  the 
withdrawal  of  certain  Southern  Annual  Conferences. 
Then  the  General  Conference  would  not  have  anything 
to  do  with  it. 

If  the  General  Conference  would  not  agree  to  it  then, 
it  seems  improbable  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
will  accept  it  now  when  the  conditions  are  less  favor- 
able. 

The  second  pending  question  of  union  relates  particu- 
larly to  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church.  The  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  this  Church  in  1912  after  agreeing 
to  the  “tentative  plan”  for  consolidation  with  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  decided,  at  the  very  same  session, 
to  form  a union  with  the  United  Brethren  Church. 

Whether  this  meant  lack  of  faith  in  the  so-called 
“ tentative  ” scheme,  or  a realization  that  it  was  too  re- 
mote, is  not  stated,  but  the  very  same  General  Confer- 
ence did  decide  to  combine  with  the  United  Brethren, 
which  is  also  a “ Methodistic  ” body. 

Negotiations  have  been  carried  on  between  these  two 
bodies  during  the  period  beginning  with  1912,  and  the 
matter  is  now'  pending.  That,  or  when,  the  consum- 
mation will  be  reached,  is  regarded  as  an  uncertainty, 
but  propositions  and  negotiations  between  the  Method- 
ist Protestants  and  the  United  Brethren  still  proceed. 

The  third  pending  question  relates  to  the  Evangel- 
ical Association  and  the  United  Evangelical  Church. 
Efforts  are  now  being  made  to  effect  a reunion,  and 
commissions  representing  both  bodies  have  been  en- 


334 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


gaged  in  negotiations.  The  General  Conference  of  the 
United  Evangelical  Church  has  received  the  proposition 
with  some  favor  and  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Evangelical  Association  will  consider  the  matter  at  its 
next  session. 

The  fourth  pending  question  relates  to  the  Colored 
Episcopal  Methodists.  The  “ tentative  plan  ” previously 
referred  to  involves  the  setting  off  of  the  colored  min- 
isters and  members  into  a separate  “ quadrennial  juris- 
diction.” The  paper  sent  out  by  the  joint  commission 
suggests  that  the  colored  people  have  a direct  relation 
to  the  main  body,  though  with  their  own  “ quadrennial 
conference,”  but  the  General  Conference  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  South,  however,  recommends 
“ that  the  colored  membership  of  the  various  Methodist 
bodies  be  formed  into  an  independent  organization 
holding  fraternal  relations  with  the  reorganized  and 
united  Church.”  This  has  become  the  starting  point  of 
many  queries  and  requires  a separate  treatment. 


XXXII 


PROPOSED  UNION  OF  COLORED  METHODISTS 

The  people  of  color  who  have  been  under  Meth- 
od istic  influence  have  from  a very  early  period 
had  an  impulse  towards  independence  among 
themselves  as  separated  from  the  white  people. 

Thus  in  1813  colored  people  went  off  from  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  and  founded  the  Union  Amer- 
ican Methodist  Episcopal  Church  for  people  of  their 
race  ; in  1816  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
for  people  of  the  negro  race  was  started  by  colored  peo- 
ple who  went  out  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ; 
and  in  1817  other  colored  persons  withdrew  from  the 
same  denomination  and  organized  the  African  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Zion  Church. 

This  was  following  a common  impulse  of  human  na- 
ture, namely,  the  desire  for  self-government  and  to 
have  intimate  association  with  their  own  kind,  a desire 
which  has  been  asserted  in  some  form  by  people  of 
every  race,  and  no  fault  is  found  with  the  existence  of 
these  independent  denominations  for  people  of  color, 
and  it  seems  there  never  was  much,  if  any,  criticism 
upon,  or  opposition  to  their  organization  or  continued 
existence  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

At  one  time,  prior  to  the  Civil  War,  the  colored 
membership  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
numbered  207,766.  This  number  was  diminished  dur- 
ing and  just  after  that  war  until  in  1866  only  78,742 

335 


336 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


colored  members  were  reported.  In  regard  to  this  loss, 
Bishop  McTyeire  of  that  Church  wrote : “ The  two 
African  Churches,  hitherto  operating  mainly  in  the 
North,  appropriated  a large  share  of  them  ; another 
portion  went  to  Northern  Methodism,  which  had  also 
come  down  to  divide  the  spoils.  To  the  latter  went 
many  of  the  preachers  and  exhorters,  who  made  the 
most  efficient  agents  for  extending  their  new  organi- 
zation in  the  Southern  field ; and  some  of  them  have 
more  than  once  figured  creditably  in  their  General 
Conferences.”  * 

In  that  year,  1866,  with  the  reduced  colored  mem- 
bership, the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  began 
its  effort  to  set  off  its  colored  people  into  an  independ- 
ent Church,  which  effort  was  completed  in  1870,  when 
they  were  formed  into  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  of  America,  aided  materially  by  the  Church 
South,  bishops  of  which  formally  set  apart  the  first 
bishops  of  this  new  colored  body. 

At  the  present  time  there  are  several  independent 
Churches  of  colored  Episcopal  Methodists,  besides  the 
colored  ministers  and  members  who  belong  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Thus  there  are  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Zion  Church, 
and  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  Amer- 
ica, which  have  a very  considerable  membership,  and  a 
small  body  called  the  American  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  All  these  are  independent  denominations  of 
the  colored  race. 

Recent  statistics  show  that  the  African  Methodist 

* Bishop  McTyeire,  “History  of  Methodism,”  Nashville,  1888,  p. 
670. 


UNION  OF  COLOHED  METHODISTS  337 


Episcopal  Church  has  5,000  ministers,  and  620,000 
members ; the  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Zion 
Church  has  3,552  ministers,  and  568,608  members ; the 
Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  2,993  minis- 
ters, and  236,077  members ; the  Union  American  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  has  160  ministers,  and  18,500 
members. 

These  figures  now,  in  1915,  are  about  two  years  old, 
and,  therefore,  a percentage  of  increase  should  be  esti- 
mated. 

Again,  these  do  not  include  the  colored  people  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  who  number  about  three 
hundred  thousand  more,  and  they  should  be  added  to 
approximate  the  aggregate  number  of  colored  Episco- 
pal Methodists  in  the  United  States. 

This  would  show  1,454,730  independent  Episcopal 
Methodists  by  the  latest  available  statistics,  and,  add- 
ing twenty  per  cent,  increase  in  two  or  three  years, 
namely,  290,946,  the  total  would  be  1,745,676.  Then, 
adding  say  300,000  colored  people  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  there  would  be  a body  of  over  two 
millions  (2,045,676)  colored  Episcopal  Methodists  of 
all  kinds. 

A good  many  years  ago  suggestions  were  made  look- 
ing towards  the  union  of  some  of  the  Colored  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Churches.  Thus  as  far  back  as  1864, 
towards  the  close  of  the  Civil  War,  a convention  of 
representatives  of  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Zion 
Church  was  held  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  for  the 
purpose  of  bringing  about  the  unification  of  these 
Churches.  In  1868,  however,  the  General  Conference 
of  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  decided 


338 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


that  it  could  not  enter  into  the  consolidation  on  the 
basis  proposed. 

Later  there  were  renewed  negotiations  for  union  be- 
tween the  two  largest  bodies  of  Episcopal  Methodists, 
namely,  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and 
the  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Zion  Church.  These 
negotiations  were  carried  on  for  a considerable  period. 

For  a time  the  prospects  for  their  union  seemed 
promising,  but  organic  unity  never  was  consummated, 
and  the  effort  which  had  been  inaugurated  years  before 
ceased,  at  least  for  the  time  being.  Thus,  though 
efforts  for  union  have  continued  during  fifty-one  years, 
still  these  two  important  Churches  have  not  yet  united. 

Though  organic  unity  did  not  succeed  at  that  time, 
nevertheless  the  colored  Episcopal  Methodists  were 
drawing  nearer. 

As  a proof  that  they  were  coming  closer  together, 
we  have  the  fact  that  the  bishops  of  the  three  larger 
bodies  joined  together  and  formed  what  they  called 
“ The  Federated  Council  of  the  Bishops  of  the  African 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the  African  Methodist 
Episcopal  Zion  Church,  and  the  Colored  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  ” to  deal  with  mutual  questions  that 
did  not  require  legislation  or  other  action  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conferences. 

This  “ Federated  Council  ” held  its  first  meeting  in 
Washington,  District  of  Columbia,  February  12-17, 
1908,  and  its  second  meeting,  February  9-12,  1911,  in 
Mobile,  Alabama. 

The  First  Council  considered  and  acted  upon  such 
questions  as  a common  hymnal,  one  Catechism  for  the 
three  denominations,  a uniform  Liturgy,  and  a uniform 
public  service  for  the  Sabbath  day.  On  all  these  the 


UNION  OF  COLORED  METHODISTS  339 


Federated  Council  made  favorable  recommendations 
for  action  by  the  three  General  Conferences.  The 
Council  also  approved  of  a plan  of  mutual  transfer  be- 
tween the  three  Churches,  and  also  agreed  upon  a plan 
for  the  protection  of  the  three  denominations  from  the 
passage  of  improper  preachers  from  one  body  to  an- 
other. While  this  did  not  go  to  the  point  of  organic 
union  of  the  three  colored  denominations,  it  did  mean 
a practical  federation  of  the  potent  leaders  of  the  three 
Churches  in  the  banding  together  of  their  bishops  in  a 
Council  for  practical  purposes. 

The  Second  Federated  Council  reaffirmed  the  acts 
of  the  First  Council,  agreed  “ to  meet  biennially  here- 
after,” and  “ that  the  quadrennial  addresses  of  the 
respected  federated  bodies  be  published  in  the  chief 
organ  of  each  denomination  represented.” 

To  the  Second  Federated  Council  came  a paper  in 
favor  of  organic  union  between  the  three  Churches 
which  was  signed  by  sixteen  of  the  General  Officers  of 
these  denominations  including  editors,  secretaries,  and 
presidents  of  colleges. 

The  petition  approved  of  the  “joint  council  for 
the  purpose  of  encouraging  the  spirit  of  federation 
among  the  Churches  of  these  (three)  Methodist 
bodies,”  which  “ has  resulted  in  much  good  in  bring- 
ing about  more  harmonious  relationship  between 
them,”  and  “ will  accentuate  the  movement  of  still 
closer  ties,  and  bring  us  nearer  the  realization  of  the 
organic  union.” 

Then  the  paper  proceeded : 

Whereas,  Wq  believe  that  organic  union  of  these 
bodies  of  Methodism  will  be  for  the  best  interest  of 
the  common  cause  we  represent  in  the  development  of 


340 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


a race,  the  uplift  of  humanity,  and  the  establishment 
of  God’s  kingdom  on  earth ; and 

Whereas^  We  believe  that  organic  union  will  come 
only  as  the  result  of  some  definite  act  and  specific 
declaration  on  the  part  of  the  fathers  of  the  Church, 
backed  up  and  supported  by  those  who  have  been 
placed  in  position  of  trust  and  responsibility  in  the 
management  of  the  various  affairs  of  business  connected 
with  the  Churches  here  represented ; and 

“ Whereas^  We  believe  the  time  is  now  ripe  for  such 
definite  act  and  such  specific  declaration ; therefore 
be  it 

“ Resolved^  first.  That  the  bishops  now  assembled  be 
asked  to  make  public  and  declare  themselves  on  the 
question  of  organic  union,  and  that  such  declaration  be 
published  throughout  the  Church,  through  all  the 
organs  of  the  several  Churches  here  represented. 

“ Resolved^  second.  That  as  an  evidence  of  good  faith 
and  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  this  question  more 
directly  before  the  Church  tribunals,  and  through  them 
to  the  body  of  the  people,  there  be  created  here  and 
now  a special  commission  to  be  styled  as  a Commission 
on  Organic  Union. 

‘‘  Resolved^  third.  That  said  Commission  shall  consist 
of  the  bishops  of  the  three  Churches,  the  General 
Officers,  nine  ministers  (three  from  each)  and  six  lay- 
men (two  from  each  Church). 

‘‘  Resolved^  fourth.  That  said  Commission  be  required 
to  meet  and  formulate  plans  and  propositions  as  to  the 
basis  of  Organic  Union  ; said  plans  and  propositions  to 
be  submitted  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  re- 
spective Churches  in  their  next  regular  sessions.” 

They  also  asked  that  the  General  Officers  and  the 


UNION  OF  COLORED  METHODISTS  341 


presidents  of  their  schools  be  made  regular  members 
of  the  General  Federated  Council. 

Professor  Hawkins  “ stated  that  it  was  the  consensus 
of  opinion  of  the  General  Officers  that  there  should  be 
organic  union  between  the  three  Churches  represented,” 
and  the  Reverend  J.  F.  McDonald,  editor  of  the  Western 
Christian  Recorder^  “thought  the  petition  ought  to 
be  given  an  immediate  consideration  ” and  that  “ the 
bishops  ought  to  declare  themselves  on  the  subject.” 

Bishop  Walters  “ expressed  himself  as  being  in  favor 
of  organic  union,  but  (this)  did  not  seem  to  be  the 
Lord’s  time  for  it.  He  gave  the  history  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  subject,  and  said  he  was  not  as  enthusiastic 
as  he  had  been  heretofore,  yet,  if  it  was  to  be  voted 
upon,  he  would  vote  for  it.” 

Bishop  Smith  said  he  was  “in  favor  of  organic 
union,”  but  thought  they  “ ought  to  make  haste  slowly,” 
and  “further  stated  that  he  thought  a copy  of  the 
petition  should  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  each  bishop 
for  careful  study ; for,  if  the  matter  was  pressed  to  a 
vote,  we  might  have,  instead  of  three  churches,  six.” 

The  record  shows  that,  “ indeed,  all  the  bishops  ex- 
pressed themselves  in  favor  of  the  union,  but  thought 
in  order  to  make  it  permanent  they  should  make  haste 
slowly.” 

The  result  was  that,  on  motion  of  Bishop  Phillips, 
the  petition  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Resolu- 
tions. 

Later  the  Federated  Council  adopted  the  following : 

“ Resolved^  That  we  here  determine  to  use  our  best 
efforts  as  bishops  representing  these  three  great  Negro 
bodies  of  Methodists,  to  use  every  possible  means  to 
encourage  the  spirit  of  unity  and  fraternity  among  the 


342 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


entire  membership,  and  to  make  these  bodies  as  far  as 
possible  a powerful  means  of  promoting  the  Redeemer’s 
kingdom  on  earth : 

“ Resolved^  That  this  Federation  of  Bishops  use  its 
best  efforts  to  promote  the  establishment  of  a body  in 
our  Fatherland  to  be  known  as  the  ‘ United  Episcopal 
Methodist  Church  in  Africa  ’ ; and,  Whereas^  the  federa- 
tion of  these  Methodist  bodies  means  more  than  mere 
agreement ; and  Whereas^  it  means  cooperation  and 
fortification  ; therefore  be  it : 

“ Resolved^  That  it  is  agreed  and  covenanted  that  we, 
the  Federated  Board  of  Bishops,  will  not  practice  nor 
countenance  the  practice  of  encouraging  or  fostering 
internal  dissensions,  ruptures  or  rebellion  in  the  local 
Churches  or  the  conferences  of  one  another’s  connec- 
tion.” 

In  the  matter  of  a United  Church  in  Africa,  it  was 
agreed  to  bring  the  proposition  before  the  next  session 
of  their  several  General  Conferences,  “and  urge  the 
appointment  of  commissioners  from  each  body  who 
shall  constitute  a United  Commission,  whose  duties  it 
shall  be  to  arrange  a plan  for  the  promotion  of  this  im- 
portant object.” 

In  the  meantime  a movement  was  inaugurated  within 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  promote  the  unifica- 
tion of  colored  Methodists  who  had  an  episcopal  form 
of  government. 

In  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  held  in  1904  it  ordered  a Commission  on 
Federation  with  two  purposes,  one  looking  towai'ds 
federation  or  union  among  white  Methodists,  and  the 
other  looking  towards  unity  or  federation  among  col- 
ored Methodists.  The  act  of  1904  reiterated  points  in 


UNION  OF  COLORED  METHODISTS  343 


the  action  of  1900,  but  enlarged  the  powers  of  the 
Commission,  so  that  not  only  was  it  to  meet  like  com- 
missions, particularly  from  certain  indicated  Churches 
and  to  take  action  ‘‘  looking  towards  the  consolidation 
of  those  Churches  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,”  but  also,  and  specifically,  it  was  ordered  ‘‘  that 
the  Commission  on  Federation  take  such  steps  as  it  may 
deem  wise  and  necessary  to  bring  about  a closer  unity 
between  the  Colored  Methodist  Churches  having  an 
episcopal  form  of  government.”  This  plainly  looked 
towards  a unification  of  such  Methodistic  colored  people. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  held  in  1908,  went  still  further.  The  Commis- 
sion during  the  previous  quadrennium  had  addressed  a 
letter  to  the  senior  bishop  of  each  of  the  “various 
Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches,”  and  in  it  said : 
“We  greatly  rejoice  in  the  intellectual,  moral,  and  re- 
ligious progress  of  the  colored  race,  and  believe  that 
such  progress  would  be  promoted  by  the  increase  of 
fraternity  between  the  various  branches  of  Episcopal 
Methodism  among  colored  people.”  The  letter  also 
suggested  the  appointment  of  commissions  by  the 
several  bodies,  and  observed  that  “ the  meeting  of  the 
authorized  representatives  of  almost  two  millions  of 
colored  Church  members  for  fraternal  and  prayerful 
consultation  about  the  interests  of  their  race  would  of 
itself  be  a very  impressive  lesson  to  all  the  Churches 
and  to  the  whole  country.” 

The  report  also  stated  that  “ The  communication  was 
kindly  received  and  in  February  last  twenty-six  of  the 
twenty-eight  bishops  of  the  African  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Zion 
Church,  and  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 


344 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


met  in  Washington  City,  and  agreed  to  recommend  to 
their  respective  bodies  the  adoption  of  a common  hym- 
nal, a common  order  of  service,  and  a common  cate- 
chism, and  that  no  one  should  be  received  from  one  of 
these  Churches  by  another  unless  he  possessed  an  in- 
dorsement as  to  his  moral  character  by  the  Church 
which  he  desired  to  leave.” 

The  General  Conference  further  adopted  the  follow- 
ing : “ That  we  rejoice  in  the  increasing  evidences  of 
closer  fellowship  and  prospective  union  between  the 
various  branches  of  Colored  Episcopal  Methodism  in 
the  United  States  as  one  of  the  most  striking  and  hope- 
ful indications  of  the  growth  of  the  spirit  of  Christian 
Unity,  and  hereby  instruct  the  Commission  on  Federa- 
tion to  further  these  results  as  far  as  practicable.” 

In  addition  a separate  commission  was  ordered  in  re- 
lation to  colored  Episcopal  Methodists.  The  action 
reads : “ That  a Commission,  consisting  of  one  bishop, 
three  ministers,  and  three  laymen,  be  appointed  by  the 
Board  of  Bishops  to  serve  during  the  ensuing  quadren- 
nium  and  report  to  the  General  Conference  of  1912 ; 
whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  confer  with  similar  commis- 
sions, if  such  shall  be  appointed,  from  the  African 
Methodist  Episcopal,  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal 
Zion,  and  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches, 
concerning  such  questions  as  may  lead  to  more  har- 
monious cooperation  in  extending  the  kingdom  of 
Christ,”  and  the  Bishop  on  the  Commission  was  to 
notify  the  several  General  Conferences  of  the  willing- 
ness of  the  Commission  “ to  confer  with  similar  Com- 
missions from  these  Churches.” 

This  Commission  was  entitled  the  “ Commission  on 
the  Federation  of  Colored  Churches.” 


UNION  OF  COLORED  METHODISTS  345 


So  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  now  two  com- 
missions, one  to  confer  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  and  other  white  Churches,  and  a second 
to  confer  with  colored  bodies  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
class,  showing  a greater  specialization  by  giving  to  a 
different  commission  the  special  work  of  bringing 
about  federation,  cooperation,  and  unity  of  the  Colored 
Episcopal  Methodisms. 

The  1912  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  continued  the  two  commissions  with 
their  separate  functions,  the  one  for  white  people  and 
the  other  for  the  colored,  but  instead  of  one  bishop  on 
the  ‘‘  Commission  on  Federation  of  Colored  Churches,” 
enlarged  the  commission  by  increasing  the  number  to 
three  bishops. 

In  this  General  Conference  the  report  which  was 
adopted  said : “ It  is  plainly  our  duty  to  assist  in  every 
practical  way  in  allaying  the  competition  among  the 
colored  Methodist  Churches,  and  thus  increase  the  effi- 
ciency of  Methodism’s  combined  service  to  the  Negro 
race,”  and  the  Conference  ordered  the  Commission, 
“ whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  confer  with  similar  com- 
missions, if  such  shall  be  appointed,  from  the  African 
Methodist  Episcopal,  African  Methodist  Episcopal 
Zion,  and  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches, 
concerning  such  questions  as  may  lead  to  more 
harmonious  cooperation  in  extending  the  kingdom  of 
Christ.” 

This  Methodist  Episcopal  Commission  of  1912  met  in 
the  city  of  Chattanooga,  Tennessee,  on  the  8th  of 
January,  1915,  and,  after  studying  the  acts  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conferences  bearing  upon  the  Commission  from  the 
time  it  was  first  considered,  formulated  a statement  as 


346 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


to  their  authority  and  specified  what  they  were  em- 
powered to  do  as  follows  : 

“ Whereas,  the  General  Conference  of  1904  directed 
‘ that  the  (then)  Commission  on  Federation  take  such 
steps  as  it  may  deem  wise  and  necessary  to  bring  about 
a closer  unity  between  the  Colored  Methodist  Churches 
having  an  episcopal  form  of  government ; ’ the  General 
Conference  in  1908  spoke  of  ‘ the  prospective  union  be- 
tween the  various  branches  of  Colored  Episcopal  Method- 
ism,’ and  instructed  ‘ the  Commission  to  further  these 
results,’  and  made  a commission  ‘ to  confer  with  similar 
commissions  ’ of  the  Churches  as  aforestated  and  for 
the  purposes  named  ; and  the  1912  General  Conference 
reafiirmed  the  preceding  acts  and  said  : ‘ It  is  plainly 
our  duty  to  assist  in  every  practical  way  in  allaying  the 
competition  among  the  Colored  Methodist  Churches 
and  thus  increase  the  efficiency  of  Methodism’s  com- 
bined service  to  the  Negro  race,’  and  the  same  General 
Conference  ordered  a ‘ Commission  on  the  Federation  of 
Colored  Churches  ’ ‘ whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  confer 
with  similar  commissions,  if  such  shall  be  appointed, 
from  the  African  Methodist  Episcopal,  African  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Zion,  and  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal 
Churches,  concerning  such  questions  as  may  lead  to 
more  harmonious  cooperation  in  extending  the  kingdom 
of  Christ ; ’ 

“ Therefore,  be  it 

‘'‘Resolved^  1.  That  it  is  the  duty  of  this  ‘ Commis- 
sion on  Federation  of  Colored  Churches,’  first,  to  pro- 
mote the  union  of  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal 
Churches ; second,  to  further  their  federation  where  they 
are  not  prepared  for  organic  unity ; and,  third,  to  pro- 
mote fraternity  and  Christian  cooperation. 


UNION  OF  COLORED  METHODISTS  347 


Besolved,  2.  That  it  is  the  further  duty  of  this 
commission  to  consider  such  questions  as  vitally  concern 
our  own  colored  ministry  and  membership  in  their  re- 
lationship to  the  larger  question  of  the  organic  union  of 
Methodism. 

“ Resolved^  3.  That  in  connection  with  these  duties, 
we  recognize  the  propriety  of  seeking  to  avoid  unneces- 
sary duplications  of  Churches  and  educational  institu- 
tions ; to  prevent  the  passing  from  one  denomination  to 
another  of  improper  ministers  and  members ; and  to 
reach  wise  understandings  for  the  practical  welfare  and 
enlarged  efficiency  of  the  said  Churches,  including  the 
matter  of  better  preparation  for  and  in  the  ministry. 

“ Resolved^  4.  That  a committee  be  appointed  to 
open  correspondence  with  similar  commissions  of  the  said 
Colored  Churches  or,  where  there  are  no  such  commis- 
sions, with  the  Churches  themselves,  or  with  representa- 
tive men  of  the  said  Churches,  in  order  to  ascertain 
what  these  Churches  are  willing  to  do  in  the  matter  of 
federation,  union,  and  practical  codperation.” 

A committee  conveyed  or  communicated  this  action 
to  the  representatives  of  the  three  bodies  mentioned  and 
invited  them  to  be  present  at  and  to  participate  in  a 
joint  meeting  with  the  commission  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  Favorable  responses  were  received 
and  commissioners  from  the  three  Churches  were 
selected,  and  the  four  commissions  met  in  joint  session 
on  Wednesday,  the  30th  of  June,  1915,  in  the  city  of 
Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

Three  meetings  of  the  joint  commission  and  meetings 
of  the  several  church  commissions  met  that  day  and 
many  matters  were  canvassed.  The  deliberations 
covered  three  general  topics,  namely.  Cooperation, 


348 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Federation,  and  Organic  Unity,  and  the  joint  commis- 
sion planned  cooperation  in  various  movements  and 
agreed  to  federated  action  in  various  particulars  by 
agreeing  to  do  or  not  to  do  certain  specified  things. 
On  the  question  of  organic  union  there  was  a general 
acceptance  of  the  principle,  and  some  of  the  commis- 
sioners were  individually  and  emphatically  in  favor  of 
a combined  Colored  Episcopal  Methodism  in  one  great 
Church.  However  it  was  deemed  prudent  at  that  mo- 
ment not  to  be  very  definite  or  specific,  so  the  final 
formulation  expressed  the  idea  in  general  terms. 

The  sessions  of  this  joint  commission  were  harmoni- 
ous and  manifested  a fraternal  spirit,  and  the  perpetuity 
of  the  body  was  ensured  by  a voted  agreement  to  re- 
convene on  call. 

Out  of  this  first  joint  commission  representing  the 
colored  people  in  four  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches 
something  important  in  the  nature  of  organic  unity  or 
close  federation  may  develop. 

This  movement,  inaugurated  by  authority  from  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
and  the  participation  of  its  colored  representatives  in 
this  joint  commission  for  the  purposes  stated  has  started 
questions  as  to  the  full  meaning  and  intended  or  prob- 
able outcome  of  the  movement.  Thus  it  has  started 
questions  as  to  the  present  and  future  relations  of  the 
colored  people  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to 
the  colored  Episcopal  Methodists  outside  that  Church 
and  organized  in  independent  denominations.  Again  it 
is  asked  whether  the  effort  to  bring  about  organic  unity 
between  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches  means  a 
united  Colored  Episcopal  Methodism  which  involves  in 
it  the  colored  ministry  and  membership  of  the  Method- 


UNION  OF  COLORED  METHODISTS  349 


ist  Episcopal  Church,  or  a changed  adjustment  of  the 
relation  of  its  present  colored  membership  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  itself. 

But  a similar  question  is  forced  upon  the  attention 
by  the  “ tentative  ” proposition,  or  “ suggestion,”  sent 
out  from  the  joint  commission  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
and  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  in  May,  1911, 
and  approved  in  May,  1912,  by  the  Methodist  Prot- 
estant General  Conference,  and  qualifiedly  approved  in 
May,  1914,  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Method- 
its  Episcopal  Church,  South,  which  latter  approval  has 
caused  some  to  consider  it  as  a proposition  for  union 
emanating  from  the  Church  South. 

Though  it  was  declared  by  the  joint  commission  to  be 
not  a “ plan  ” but  simply  a tentative  suggestion  “ to  be 
regarded  simply  as  illustrative  of  the  present  status  of 
(the  Commission’s)  deliberations,”  nevertheless,  by 
many,  the  outline  has  been  seriously  taken  as  suggest- 
ing what  is  called  unification  by  “ reorganization,”  and 
the  division  of  the  country  into  sectional  Quadrennial 
Conferences,  with  the  colored  Episcopal  Methodists  in 
a quadrennial  conference  by  themselves. 

One  conspicuous  proposition  in  that  tentative  docu- 
ment is  that  which  meditates  the  setting  off  of  the 
colored  people  in  a body  by  themselves,  and  that  all 
colored  Episcopal  Methodists  be  united  in  one  body. 
The  report  in  question  suggested  that  the  colored 
people  in  any  of  the  three  bodies  represented  in  the 
commission  “ and  such  organizations  of  colored  Method- 
ists as  may  enter  into  agreement  with  them  may  be 
constituted  and  reorganized  as  one  of  the  Quadrennial 
or  Jurisdictional  Conferences  of  the  proposed  reorgani- 


350 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


zation,”  but  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  1914,  voted  a recommend- 
ation that  the  colored  people  “ be  formed  into  an  inde- 
pendent organization,  holding  fraternal  relations  with 
the  reorganized  and  united  Church.” 

That  the  colored  people  shall  not  be  organically  con- 
nected with  it,  or  with  it  in  union  with  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  but  that  they  shall  be  organically 
independent,  is  understood  to  be  the  attitude  of  the 
Church  South,  and  it  is  asserted  that  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  makes  as  one  of  its  conditions 
of  possible  union  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
such  an  elimination  of  the  colored  people  now  in  con- 
nection with  the  latter  Church. 

That  raises  the  question  as  to  what  may  be  done  with 
the  colored  persons  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
or  what  they  may  do  with  themselves. 

If  union  between  the  great  Methodist  Episcopal 
Churches  is  desirable  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  will  not  unite  with  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  as  long  as  the  latter  has  colored 
ministers  and  members  and  colored  delegates  in  its 
General  Conferences,  and  that  view  is  corroborated  by 
the  fact  that  the  Church  South  practically  has  no 
colored  members  and  absolutely  no  colored  delegates 
in  its  General  Conferences,  it  is  plain  that  there  will  be 
no  union  at  the  present  time  and  as  long  as  that  atti- 
tude is  persisted  in,  unless  the  colored  people  make 
some  other  arrangement  or  some  other  arrangement  is 
made  for  them,  and  such  an  arrangement  as  will  sepa- 
rate them  from,  or  make  them  independent  of,  the 
white  people  in  this  Church. 

Some,  however,  not  impressed  by  the  necessity  of 


UNION  OF  COLORED  METHODISTS  351 


making  the  colored  people  independent  in  order  to 
effect  a union  between  two  white  Methodist  Episcopal 
Churches,  might  not  regard  this  as  a sufficient  reason, 
and  yet  they  might  favor  the  separation  on  other 
grounds. 

It  is  evident  that  there  may  be  other  reasons  for  such 
a separation,  for  the  present  question  of  union  between 
two  white  Churches,  or  mainly  white,  was  not  before 
the  Church  when  in  the  early  period  colored  ministers 
and  people  withdrew  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  organized  independent  denominations  for 
people  of  color.  So  some  may  see  other  reasons  at  the 
present  time. 

With  some  the  mere  desire  for  self-government  might 
be  a sufficient  motive  for  independence.  With  others 
there  might  be  a conviction  that  to  be  thrown  upon 
their  own  resources  might  be  for  the  good  of  the  people 
made  independent  and  that  there  would  be  a more 
rapid  and  a more  symmetrical  development  because 
they  would  have  to  direct  their  own  affairs.  Such 
reasons  might  be  regarded  by  many  as  quite  enough  to 
induce  them  to  favor  independence,  while  different 
reasons  might  inffuence  others. 

The  proposition  to  which  reference  has  been  made 
would  particularly  affect  the  colored  people  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  of  whom  there  are  said 
to  be  about  300,000. 

It  would  imply  their  independence,  or  their  separa- 
tion from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  then 
their  combination  with  one  or  more  of  the  existing 
colored  denominations  composed  of  Episcopal  Method- 
ists. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  no  longer 


352 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


has  this  problem  within  itself,  for  some  forty-five  years 
ago  its  colored  membership  became  independent,  and 
formed  the  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  So 
the  question  is  one  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
and  its  colored  ministers  and  members. 

They  will  have  to  study  and  determine  the  desira- 
bility and  feasibility  of  such  a separation  and  some 
form  of  independence,  and  act  if  it  is  found  desirable 
and  feasible. 

The  question  may  be:  Will  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  set  off  the  colored  people,  or  will  the  colored 
people  seek  a voluntary  withdrawal,  or  will  there  be  a 
mutual  and  cordial  agreement  ? 

What  the  Church  would  like  to  do,  or  what  the 
colored  people  would  like  to  do  cannot  be  definitely 
stated  at  this  moment,  though  possibly  some  recent 
events  may  contain  a partial  revelation. 

In  the  first  place,  a few  years  ago  the  Reverend 
Bishop  Isaiah  B.  Scott,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Colored 
Missionary  Bishop  in  Africa,  issued  a circular  address 
proposing  that  the  colored  people  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  become  an  independent  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  for  the  people  of  their  own  color. 

Then  a convention  of  colored  ministers  and  laymen 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  met  in  the  month 
of  October,  1014,  in  the  city  of  Nashville,  Tennessee, 
considered  this  very  question  of  segregation,  and  voted 
their  willingness  to  be  set  off  as  one  of  the  suggested 
quadrennial  jurisdictions.  The  resolution  the  conven- 
tion adopted  read  as  follows : “ With  the  light  now  be- 
fore us,  we  approve  the  plan  of  the  Federation  Com- 
mission for  the  reorganization  of  Methodism  providing 
for  jurisdictional  or  quadrennial  conferences  with  iden- 


UNION  OF  COLORED  METHODISTS  353 


tical  powers  and  privileges,  one  of  which  is  to  be  com- 
posed of  the  affiliated  colored  membership.” 

Of  course  this  convention  was  not  constituted  by 
ecclesiastical  authority  but  came  together  voluntarily 
on  call  and  was  self -controlled,  and  yet  it  was  composed 
of  representative  persons,  and  their  judgment  may  be 
regarded  as  fairly  representative  of  the  feeling  of  many 
of  their  people  at  that  time. 

However,  as  there  has  been  no  very  general  expres- 
sion of  opinion  given  in  an  authoritative  manner,  it  is 
not  perfectly  clear  what  all  wish  or  what  the  majority 
will  desire. 

There  are,  nevertheless,  race  aspirations  and  desires 
for  independence  and  self-government  among  all  peo- 
ples which  must  be  taken  into  account.  How  these 
natural  desires  will  assert  themselves  cannot  now  be 
definitely  predicted.  It  is  further  complicated  by 
the  fact  that  in  the  solution  both  races  have  an  interest 
and  may  have  something  to  say. 

In  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  there  are 
practically  no  colored  people,  but  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  a minority  of  the  membership  is 
colored  and  this  colored  minority  has  its  own  local 
churches  and  ministers  and  its  own  Annual  Confer- 
ences and  its  own  District  Superintendents,  or  Presid- 
ing Elders,  of  its  own  race,  so  that,  if  it  was  desired,  a 
separate  body  could  easily  be  constituted. 

To  this  minority  the  great  majority  of  the  Church 
has  always  been  kind  and  helpful,  and  that  always  has 
been  recognized,  but  it  may  be  that  race  ambitions  and 
the  natural  demand  for  self-control  may  impel  the  col- 
ored minority  to  prefer  independence  which  will  per- 
mit them  to  elect  bishops,  as  well  as  other  church 


354 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


officers  from  their  own  race,  and  enable  them  to  man- 
age their  church  affairs  in  their  own  way. 

Then  there  may  be  a growing  conviction  on  the  part 
of  the  colored  people  that  their  own  development  would 
be  more  rapid  if  they  had  the  responsibility  of  govern- 
ing themselves,  and  of  planning  and  prosecuting  the 
work  among  and  for  their  own  people. 

The  total  colored  membership  in  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  numbers  about  300,000  while  the  entire 
membership  of  the  denomination  is  not  far  from  four 
millions. 

The  entire  colored  population  of  the  United  States  is 
estimated  as  about  ten  millions,  so  that  it  is  plain  that 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  not  been  getting, 
or  caring  for  all,  or  for  any  very  large  proportion,  of  the 
colored  people  of  the  country. 

What  effect  a consideration  of  these  facts  will  have 
cannot  be  positively  predicted.  Then  there  is  a further 
fact  of  some  importance,  namely,  that  the  great  major- 
ity of  the  colored  Methodists  are  in  denominations  by 
themselves.  There  are  more  than  a million  and  a half 
of  communicants  in  the  independent  Colored  Methodist 
Churches,  as  compared  with  less  than  one-third  of  a 
million  of  colored  communicants  in  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church.  Thus  there  is  only  a small  minority, 
compared  with  the  aggregate  mass,  in  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church  with  its  millions  of  white  mem- 
bers. 

A philosophic  historian  would  infer  from  these  facts 
that  the  colored  people  as  a whole  prefer  to  be  eccle- 
siastically by  themselves  in  their  own  independent 
Churches,  and  that  it  would  not  be  improbable  that  the 
colored  people  now  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 


UNION  OF  COLORED  METHODISTS  355 


would  sooner  or  later  prefer  to  be  in  an  independent 
Church  controlled  by  their  own  race. 

If  they  did  withdraw,  it  is  probable  that  the  colored 
people  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  would  prefer 
not  to  fuse  at  first  with  other  colored  Episcopal  Meth- 
odists, but  to  organize  themselves  into  an  independent 
colored  Church,  elect  their  own  bishops  and  other  gen- 
eral officers,  and  later  consider  the  question  of  combin- 
ing with  other  colored  bodies.  At  least  that  has  been 
the  expressed  opinion  of  some  of  their  leaders,  who  say 
that  otherwise  they  would  be  at  a disadvantage  in  deal- 
ing with  independent  organizations  that  have  been  com- 
pacted by  years  of  experience  and  self-control. 

If  the  colored  Methodist  Episcopalians  withdrew  and 
became  an  independent  body,  it  is  probable  that  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  would  make  a satisfactory 
adjustment  as  to  property,  and  would  continue  to  ap- 
propriate missionary  money  for  the  aid  of  the  colored 
people,  as  it  now  gives  missionary  money  to  the  inde- 
pendent Church  of  Japan,  and  that  it  would  continue  to 
appropriate  to  the  educational  work  among  the  people  of 
color.  Doubtless  such  matters  might  be  adjusted  to  mu- 
tual satisfaction  if  the  independence  was  agreed  upon. 

If  all  the  colored  Episcopal  Methodists,  including 
those  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  were  to  com- 
bine they  would  make  a great  Church  of  about  two 
millions  or  more  communicants,  not  counting  adherents 
and  Sunday-school  scholars. 

This  would  make  an  impressive  and  influential  body 
and  when  two  millions  or  two  millions  and  a half  ut- 
tered their  voice  for  themselves,  or  for  any  righteous 
cause  it  would  be  heard  and  heeded,  as  would  not  be 
the  case  with  the  cry  of  small  or  fragmentary  bodies. 


356 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Many  colored  people  may  conclude  that  in  view  of 
race  questions,  which  observing  persons  believe  are  im- 
pending, it  will  be  well  to  secure  the  solidarity  and 
power  given  by  unified  Colored  Episcopal  Methodism 
in  an  organization  which  would  be  as  large  as,  or  pos- 
sibly larger  than,  the  present  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South. 

These  are  not  an  advocate’s  theories  but  the  historian’s 
perception  of  facts  and  possibilities.  From  these  facts 
inferences  may  be  drawn  that  point  to  possibilities  and 
even  probabilities,  but  it  would  take  prophetic  vision 
to  perceive  the  final  outcome. 

The  large  majority  of  colored  Methodists  have 
yielded  to  the  natural  impulse  to  be  independent,  and 
it  is  intimated  that  some  of  the  independents  pride 
themselves  on  their  independence  so  that  they  twit  the 
colored  people  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  for 
being  under  white  domination,  all  of  which  raises  ques- 
tions and  causes  reflection. 

It  is  expected  that  what  is  right  and  best  will  be 
carefully  considered  by  the  colored  people  and  their 
best  friends  of  the  white  race. 


XXXIII 


GERMAN- AMERICAN  METHODISM 

The  study  of  American  Methodism  would  not 
be  complete  without  a mention  of  certain 
Methodistic  Churches  which  at  first  appealed 
particularly  to  people  who  spoke  the  German  tongue. 

Many  Germans  for  religious  liberty  as  well  as  polit- 
ical freedom  came  to  the  English  Colonies  long  before 
the  war  for  Independence  and  settled  chiefly  in  eastern 
and  central  Pennsylvania,  and  their  descendants  in  that 
state  are  to  this  day  spoken  of  as  Pennsylvania  Ger- 
mans, and  there  they  have  to  a great  extent  preserved 
their  ancient  mother  tongue,  though  now  modified  con- 
siderably by  contact  with  the  English  language,  yet 
still  a dialect  of  the  German. 

Yery  many  of  the  original  immigrants  were  from 
the  Rhenish  Palatinate  and  spoke  the  German  of  that 
region,  and  the  language  of  the  Pennsylvania  Germans 
can  be  understood  at  the  present  time  by  the  people  of 
Southern  Germany  in  the  Upper  Rhine  country. 

From  Pennsylvania  as  a center  these  German  people 
spread  in  various  directions,  but  the  population  was 
more  dense  in  certain  sections  of  Pennsylvania  than 
elsewhere. 

To  provide  for  the  religious  needs  of  these  Germanic 
communities  ministers  were  from  time  to  time  sent 
from  Germany. 

Among  those  who  were  sent  for  to  perform  this  work 

357 


358 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


was  a young  German  Reformed  minister  named  Philip 
William  Otterbein  who  was  born  in  1Y26,  in  Dillen- 
berg,  in  the  Duchy  of  Nassau,  Germany.  His  father 
was  a minister  of  the  German  Reformed  Church  and 
also  the  rector  of  the  Latin  school  at  Dillenberg. 

As  might  be  expected  in  view  of  such  environments 
and  in  view  of  his  calling,  Philip  William  Otterbein 
was  very  thoroughly  educated.  His  certificate  of  ordi- 
nation speaks  of  him  as  “ the  reverend  and  very  learned 
young  man  Philip  William  Otterbein,”  and  the  testi- 
monial drawn  up  when  he  was  recommended  for  the 
work  in  America  refers  to  him  as  “ the  truly  reverend 
and  very  learned  Mr.  Philip  William  Otterbein.” 

In  1752,  when  a young  man  of  twenty-six,  he  emi- 
grated from  Germany  and,  coming  to  America,  had  his 
first  pastoral  charge  in  this  country  in  the  city  of 
Lancaster,  Pennsylvania.  In  Germany  Mr.  Otterbein 
had  come  under  pietistic  influences,  and,  while  in  Lan- 
caster, he  was  impressed  with  the  necessity  of  securing 
a personal  spiritual  experience  much  profounder  and 
more  pervading  than  was  commonly  possessed  or  taught 
in  his  denomination.  He,  therefore,  earnestly  sought 
a more  thorough  work  of  divine  grace  and  entered  into 
a higher  religious  life  and  this  he  regarded  as  his  first 
real  change  of  heart. 

That  he  had  experienced  some  change  was  seen  in 
the  changed  style  of  his  preaching,  for  though  it  had 
been  quite  direct,  his  ministry  now  assumed  a pro- 
foundly spiritual  character  and  he  preached  with  an 
unction  such  as  neither  he  nor  his  people  had  before 
realized,  and,  in  addition,  he  began  to  hold  evangelistic 
services,  and  instituted  special  prayer  and  experience 
meetings  and  even  held  religious  services  in  the  open  air. 


GERMAN-AMEIUCAN  METHODISM  359 


After  six  years  in  the  Lancaster  pastorate,  he  trans- 
ferred his  labors  to  Tulpehocken,  Pennsylvania,  where 
he  continued  his  highly  spiritual  ministry.  Here  he 
exhorted  the  people  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come, 
using  methods  and  language  suggestive  of  those  em- 
ployed by  John  Wesley  whose  work  had  been  spread- 
ing throughout  Great  Britain.  How  much  of  Wesley’s 
influence  had  extended  to  the  American  colonies  at  that 
time  is  not  known  though  it  is  possible  that  individuals 
who  had  heard  him  or  his  co-workers  had  come  to 
America,  but,  as  far  as  now  known,  there  was  not  a 
Wesleyan  society  or  a single  pronounced  follower  of 
Wesley  in  all  America. 

Mr.  Otterbein’s  “ new  measures,”  however,  brought 
upon  him  severe  criticism. 

From  1760  to  1765  Otterbein  was  pastor  in  Frederick 
City,  Maryland,  and  from  1765  to  1770  he  was  pastor  at 
York,  Pennsylvania.  Then  he  visited  Germany,  and 
on  his  return  he  served  as  pastor  in  York  from  1771 
to  1774. 

All  this  time  Mr.  Otterbein  had  been  pursuing  his 
peculiar  course  and  diffusing  his  ideas  of  the  spiritual 
life.  It  has  been  said  that  he  was  led  into  the  light  of 
a new  life  by  the  Reverend  Martin  Boehm,  a zealous 
Mennonite  preacher  of  Pennsylvania.  However  that 
may  have  been  the  two  ministers  became  closely 
related.  It  is  told  that  Mr.  Otterbein  attended  a re- 
ligious meeting  held  in  a barn  in  Lancaster  County, 
Pennsylvania,  where  Mr.  Boehm  delivered  a discourse, 
and  at  the  close  of  the  sermon  before  Mr.  Boehm  had 
taken  his  seat,  Mr.  Otterbein  arose  and  embraced  him, 
exclaiming:  “We  be  brethren!”  and  from  that  time 
they  were  brethren  united  in  Christ. 


360 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


At  first  they  worked  separately  travelling  exten- 
vely,  preaching  here  and  there,  organizing  societies, 
and  gathering  co-workers,  but  later  they  became  co- 
laborers and  acted  conjointly.  As  the  societies  became 
more  numerous  a system  of  regular  ministerial  supply 
was  devised  to  maintain  the  stated  services,  and  the 
preachers  interested  in  the  developing  movement  met 
and  conferred  together. 

In  the  meantime  Mr.  Otterbein  was  called  to  a pas- 
torate in  the  city  of  Baltimore.  There  had  been  a split 
in  the  German  Reformed  Church  in  that  city  and  a 
new  Church  had  been  formed  in  1770,  and  the  new 
organization  wanted  Mr.  Otterbein  to  be  its  pastor. 
Mr.  Francis  Asbury,  the  leader  of  the  Wesleyan  move- 
ment in  America,  was  at  that  time  in  Baltimore,  and  on 
this  matter  was  in  consultation  with  the  Reverend  Mr. 
Schwope  of  the  Reformed  Church.  Asbury  wanted 
Otterbein  to  come  to  Baltimore,  and  sustained  the  re- 
quest of  the  congregation  by  writing  a personal  letter 
to  Mr.  Otterbein  urging  him  to  accept  the  invitation. 

Otterbein  in  1774  came  to  the  new  Church  and  it 
became  a new  kind  of  a Church,  which,  instead  of  call- 
ing itself  a German  Reformed  Church,  called  itself 
“ The  Evangelical  Reformed  Church.” 

It  was  in  May,  1774,  the  very  year  that  Otterbein 
came  to  Baltimore,  that  German-speaking  ministers 
with  evangelical  spirits  and  cooperating  in  evangelistic 
work  began  to  hold  meetings  and  called  themselves 
“ The  United  Ministers.”  Somewhere  between  1775 
and  1780  the  Mennonites  excluded  from  their  fellow- 
ship their  preacher,  the  Reverend  Martin  Boehm,  be- 
cause they  did  not  approve  of  his  theological  teachings, 
and,  for  similar  reasons,  excluded  his  followers. 


GERMAN-AMERICAN  METHODISM  361 


This  helped  towards  a new  organization  among  the 
Germans. 

Before  that,  however,  there  occurred  another  ecclesi- 
astical development.  The  Wesleyan  societies  had 
spread  throughout  the  colonies  and  had  become  an 
important  factor  in  the  new  Republic.  Their  organiza- 
tion, however,  was  not  complete.  It  was  still  directly 
related  to  Wesley  in  England  and  needed  a readapta- 
tion to  new  conditions  in  America.  So,  after  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  United  States  of  America,  Wesley 
determined  upon  the  reorganization  of  the  Wesleyan 
body  in  this  country. 

The  plan  for  the  reorganization  was  brought  by  the 
Reverend  Thomas  Coke,  D.  C.  L.,  of  Oxford  University, 
England,  who,  a regularly  ordained  presbyter  of  the 
Church  of  England,  but  a minister  under  Mr.  Wesley, 
and  a member  of  his  Conference,  had  been  set  apart  by 
Wesley  for  the  headship  of  the  new  American  organi- 
zation, to  act  in  conjunction  with  Francis  Asbury. 

Philadelphia,  the  chief  city  in  the  colonies  and  later 
in  the  new  nation,  had  been  the  early  Methodistic  center, 
but  the  movements  of  the  British  forces  and  the  occu- 
pation of  Philadelphia  by  a British  army  had  forced 
the  work  and  the  workers  farther  southward  and  Balti- 
more became  a convenient  point  for  general  gatherings. 
To  Baltimore,  therefore,  the  American  Wesleyan 
preachers  came  to  consider  Wesley’s  plan  and  his  pro- 
posals for  his  people  in  the  new  land,  and  the  American 
Conference  met  in  the  Lovely  Lane  Chapel  in  that  city, 
on  Christmas  eve,  1784,  and,  continuing  through  the 
Christmas  season,  it  has  been  called  the  “Christmas 
Conference.” 

Wesley’s  communication  was  read,  and,  as  Freeborn 


362 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Garrettson,  who  was  present,  said : ‘‘We  acceded  to 
the  method  proposed  by  Mr.  Wesley,”  and,  as  Asbury 
recorded,  “ It  was  agreed  to  form  ourselves  into  an 
Episcopal  Church,  and  to  have  superintendents,  elders, 
and  deacons,”  and  for  distinction  they  called  it  “ The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.”  Asbury  also  notes  that, 
“ When  the  Conference  was  seated.  Doctor  Coke  and 
myself  were  unanimously  elected  to  the  superintendency 
of  the  Church.” 

The  Wesleyan  idea  of  the  episcopate  was  that  the 
episcopacy  was  a superintendency  and  that  a bishop 
was  an  ecclesiastical  superintendent,  and,  hence,  bishop 
and  superintendent  were  often  used  interchangeably, 
but  bishop  became  the  title  of  the  officer  while  superin- 
tendency characterized  the  nature  of  the  service  he 
rendered. 

Doctor  Coke,  having  been  set  apart  in  England, 
needed,  at  this  time,  no  consecration,  but  Francis 
Asbury,  who  had  been  the  acting  and  real  head  of 
Wesleyanism  in  America,  having  been  elected  superin- 
tendent or  bishop,  to  act  conjointly  with  Bishop  Coke, 
needed  the  formal  service  inducting  him  into  his  high 
office. 

Doctor  Coke  with  others  were  sufficient  for  this  serv- 
ice but  Asbury  requested  his  friend  the  Reverend  Philip 
William  Otter bein  to  participate  in  the  consecration 
service.  So  Otterbein  joined  with  Bishop  Coke  and 
the  new  elders,  Richard  Whatcoat  and  Thomas  Yasey, 
just  arrived  from  England,  in  the  formal  service  setting 
apart  Francis  Asbury  for  his  high  office  in  the  new 
American  Church,  and  previously  assisted  in  his  ordi- 
nation as  elder. 

Bishop  Coke  and  the  others  represented  the  British 


GERMAN-AMERICAN  METHODISM  363 


line  of  clerical  succession,  while  Otterbein  represented 
that  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Continental  Europe, 
so  that,  if  there  was  any  grace  coming  from  a succes- 
sion, Asbury  received  a double  stream  from  the  two 
sources,  the  Anglican  and  the  Reformed  Churches. 

The  incidents  mentioned  show  that  the  Reverend  Mr. 
Otterbein  was  closely  related  to  Bishop  Asbury  and  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  He  had  a strong  sym- 
pathy with  its  polity,  its  doctrines,  and  its  practical 
methods  of  work,  which  he  incorporated  in  his  own  re- 
ligious operations.  So  it  happened  that,  working  on 
similar  lines,  Asbury  devoted  himself  to  Americans 
generally,  while  Otterbein,  being  a German,  devoted 
himself  particularly  to  the  German-speaking  people  who 
were  found  here  and  there  throughout  the  land. 

Pursuing  methods  of  operation  similar  to  those  em- 
ployed by  Asbury  and  other  ministers  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  the  work  of  Otterbein  and  Boehm 
resulted,  in  what  was,  in  many  respects,  a duplicate  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  but  for  the  Germans. 

One  rule  of  Otterbein’s  Church  in  Baltimore,  before 
the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  read  : “ IN'o  preacher 
can  stay  among  us  who  will  not  to  the  best  of  his  ability 
care  for  the  various  Churches  in  Pennsylvania,  Maryland 
and  Virginia,  which  Churches,  under  the  superintend- 
ence of  William  Otterbein,  stand  in  fraternal  unity 
with  us.” 

The  Reverend  Daniel  Berger,  D.  D.,  in  his  history,* 
says  that  the  Churches  referred  to  “ were  such  societies 
as  were  formed  of  men  and^women  converted  under  the 
preaching  of  Mr.  Otterbein  at  various  points  visited  by 

^“History  of  the  Church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ,”  Dayton, 
Ohio,  1897,  p.  101. 


364 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


him  from  time  to  time,  and  under  the  preaching  of  Mr. 
Boehm,”  and  others. 

The  first  formal  Conference  of  the  preachers  asso- 
ciated with  Otterbein  and  Boehm  was  held  in  1Y89,  in 
Otterbein’s  parsonage  in  Baltimore,  when  seven  min- 
isters were  reported  present,  and  the  same  number 
absent,  making  fourteen  who  were  understood  to  be 
affiliated  or  acting  together.  Otterbein  and  Boehm 
were  among  those  present.  The  former  was  now  about 
sixty-three  years  of  age  and  the  latter  was  one  year 
older.  This  meeting  adopted  an  instrument  made  up 
of  the  “ Disciplinary  Rules  ” and  “ The  Doctrine  of  the 
United  Brethren  in  Christ.”  A second  formal  Con- 
ference was  held  in  1791,  about  eight  miles  from  York, 
Pennsylvania,  when  Otterbein  and  Boehm  and  seven 
others  were  present  and  thirteen  were  absent. 

After  this  no  Conference  was  held  until  1800.  This 
Conference,  convened  by  Otterbein  in  conjunction  with 
Boehm,  and  held  on  the  25th  and  26th  of  September, 
1800,  at  the  house  of  a Peter  Kemp,  a little  more  than 
two  miles  west  of  Frederick  City,  Maryland,  was  historic. 

Fourteen  preachers  were  present  and  eighteen  were 
absent,  and  among  those  in  attendance  were  Otterbein, 
Martin  Boehm,  and  the  latter’s  son,  Henry  Boehm. 

Here  it  would  seem  the  work  of  the  scattered  preach- 
ers and  societies  was  compacted  as  a distinct  body. 
The  title  of  the  organization  was  definitely  decided. 
In  the  prefatory  remark  to  the  Minutes  appears  the 
title,  “ The  United  Brotherhood  in  Christ  Jesus,”  and 
a briefer  form,  used  previously,  “ the  United,”  an  ab- 
breviated appellation,  meaning  “ The  Unified.”  The 
people  had  been  called  “ United  Brethren,”  but  now, 
to  avoid  confusion  with  the  Moravian  “ United  Breth- 


GERMAN-AMERICAN  METHODISM  365 


ren,”  or  “ TJnitas  FratTum^'^  the  Conference  formally 
adopted  the  title  “United  Brethren  in  Christ,”  or  “ The 
Church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ.”  ‘ 

This  Conference  of  1800  also  elected  the  Reverend 
Philip  William  Otterbein  and  the  Reverend  Martin 
Boehm  superintendents  or  bishops.  Doctor  Har- 
baugh,  the  Reformed  Church  historian,  disputes  this 
and  says  that  no  bishop  was  elected  by  the  United 
Brethren  Church  until  1813,  the  year  when  Otter- 
bein died.  Doctor  Harbaugh  bases  his  denial  also 
on  the  assertion  that  Mr.  Otterbein  never  left  the  Ger- 
man Reformed  Church,  but,  even  if  that  were  true,  it 
might  be  held  that  he  could  have  had  a sort  of  double 
relationship.  Indeed  it  is  declared  that  though  he  did 
not  formally  withdraw  from  the  German  Reformed 
Church,  his  active  relationship  for  years  was  very 
slight.  So  John  Wesley  never  formally  withdrew 
from  the  Church  of  England,  yet  he  was  the  head  of 
an  independent  ecclesiasticism  over  which  the  Church 
of  England  never  had  any  control  and  did  not  control 
or  direct  him  in  its  management.  It  will  also  be  re- 
membered that  Otterbein’s  Church  in  Baltimore  had 
named  itself  “ The  Evangelical  Reformed  Church.” 

The  United  Brethren  historians  maintain  that  both 
Otterbein  and  Boehm  were  elected  superintendents  or 
bishops  in  1800  and  the  Reverend  Henry  Boehm,  who 
was  present,  states  that  they  were  so  elected.  Thus  he 
says : “ They  elected  bishops  for  the  first  time. 
William  Otterbein  and  Martin  Boehm  (my  father) 
were  unanimously  chosen.”  ^ 

^ Daniel  Berger,  D.  D.,  “ History  of  the  Church  of  the  United  Breth- 
ren in  Christ,”  1897,  pp.  163-165. 

2 “Henry  Boehm’s  Reminiscences,”  pp.  55,  56. 


366 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Attention  is  also  called  to  a record  in  the  Conference 
of  1802,  only  two  years  later,  “ That  in  case  one  of  our 
superintendents — W.  Otterbein  and  Martin  Boehm — 
should  die,  another  one  in  his  place  shall  always  be 
appointed.” 

The  Church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ  had  a 
polity  that  was  episcopal,  while  in  doctrine  it  was  Ar- 
minian.  It  adopted  most  of  the  prudential  arrange- 
ments of  Methodism  and  had  in  practical  operation  the 
same  methods  in  polity.  It  had  an  appointive  power 
and  an  itinerant  ministerial  system.  It  had  Annual 
Conferences  and  a Quadrennial  General  Conference, 
and  in  the  organization  of  the  local  church  it  was  quite 
similar  to  the  local  charges  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  The  great  difference  was  that  it  devoted  it- 
self to  work  in  German  and  among  Germans  while  the 
other  Church  used  the  English  language  and  operated 
among  English-speaking  people,  and  because  of  this 
these  United  Brethren  were  frequently  called  German 
Methodists. 

In  the  early  days,  as  might  be  inferred  from  the 
personal  friendship  between  Asbury  and  Otterbein,  and 
also  with  Martin  Boehm,  the  relationship  between  the 
United  Brethren  in  Christ  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  was  very  close,  and  it  was  possible  for  ministers 
and  members  of  one  Church  to  pass  into  the  other  with 
scarcely  any  perceptible  change  in  practice  or  difference 
in  doctrine. 

The  relations  were  most  cordial  and  steps  were  taken 
to  strengthen  the  bonds  of  amity  so  that  they  might 
use  each  other’s  church  buildings,  and  there  was  free 
admission  of  members  of  the  one  into  the  class-meet- 
ings, the  prayer-meetings,  and  the  love-feasts  of  the  other. 


GERMAN-AMERICAN  METHODISM  367 


Martin  Boehm,  co-founder  with  Otterbein  of  the 
United  Brethren,  fraternized  with  preachers  and  people 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  so  that  he  could 
have  passed  as  one  of  them,  and,  when  he  was  seventy- 
six  or  seventy-seven  years  of  age,  he  had  his  name 
placed  upon  a Methodist  Episcopal  class-book  at 
Boehm’s  Chapel  near  which  he  resided.  The  chapel 
stood  on  ground  which  once  was  part  of  his  own 
homestead  and  which  later  had  belonged  to  his  son 
Jacob,  who  was  a member  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

In  regard  to  this  Bishop  Boehm  said  : “ Age  having 
overtaken  me,  with  some  of  its  infirmities,  I could  not 
travel  as  I had  formerly  done.  In  1802  I enrolled  my 
name  on  a Methodist  class-book,  and  I have  found  great 
comfort  in  meeting  with  my  brethren.” 

This,  it  is  held,  did  not  mean  that  he  had  left  the 
United  Brethren,  for  it  is  shown  that  he  presided  in 
the  United  Brethren  Conference  in  1805  when  he  was 
elected  superintendent  or  bishop  a second  time,  and  he 
was  present  at  the  Conference  of  1809. 

This  was  his  last  Conference  for  he  then  was  eighty- 
three  years  of  age.  About  three  years  later,  on  the 
23d  of  March,  1812,  Martin  Boehm  died,  aged  eighty- 
six  years,  three  months,  and  eleven  days,  after  a min- 
istry of  fifty-three  years,  and  his  honored  remains  were 
laid  in  the  ground  on  which  he  had  lived  beside 
Boehm’s  Chapel,  in  Lancaster  County,  Pennsylvania, 
which  venerable  edifice  still  stands  a monument  to 
Boehm  and  an  evidence  of  the  close  relationship  be- 
tween the  United  Brethren  and  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  in  those  days. 

Bishop  Boehm’s  son,  Henry  Boehm,  who  had  been  a 


368 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


United  Brethren  preacher,  joined  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  and  entered  its  ministry,  as  Doctor  Berger 
says ; “ On  account  of  the  greater  thoroughness  of  its 
organization,  especially  as  to  its  more  elaborate  dis- 
cipline and  the  efficiency  of  its  itinerant  system.”  He 
was  the  long  time  travelling  companion  of  Bishop 
Asbury.  He  lived  to  a great  old  age,  dying  on  the 
29th  of  December,  1875,  aged  one  hundred  years,  six 
months,  and  twenty-one  days,  having  been  a member  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  for  seventy-seven  years. 

Bishop  Otterbein  presided  over  his  Conference  for 
the  last  time  in  May,  1805.  On  the  2d  of  October, 
1813,  he  ordained  a minister  “with  the  assistance  of 
William  Ryland,”  an  elder  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  The  next  month,  on  the  17th  of  November, 
1813,  Bishop  Philip  William  Otterbein  died,  aged 
eighty-seven  years,  five  months,  and  fourteen  days, 
after  sixty-five  years  in  the  ministry.  At  his  funeral 
service  three  ministers  officiated,  one  from  the  Lutheran 
Church,  another  from  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
and  the  third  was  the  Reverend  William  Ryland  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Bishop  Asbury,  who  had  preached  a sermon  on  the 
death  of  Bishop  Martin  Boehm,  now  preached  a special 
sermon  on  the  decease  of  Bishop  Otterbein.  In  his  dis- 
course on  Martin  Boehm,  Asbury  said:  “William 
Otterbein  was  regularly  ordained  to  the  ministry  in  the 
German  Presbyterian  Church.  He  is  one  of  the  best 
scholars  and  greatest  divines  in  America.  Why,  then, 
is  he  not  where  he  began  ? He  was  irregular.  Alas 
for  us  I the  zealous  are  necessarily  so  to  those  whose 
cry  has  been,  ‘ Put  me  into  the  priest’s  office,  that  I 
may  eat  a morsel  of  bread.’  . . . Such  was  not 


GERMAN-AMERICAN  METHODISM  369 


Boehm  ; such  is  not  Otterbein ; and  now  his  sun  is  set- 
ting in  brightness.  Behold  the  saint  of  God  leaning 
upon  his  staff,  waiting  for  the  chariots  of  Israel ! ” 

After  preaching  his  sermon  on  Otterbein,  which  was 
delivered  in  the  church  of  the  deceased  minister, 
Asbury  wrote  in  his  journal : 

“By  request  I discoursed  on  the  character  of  the 
angel  of  the  Church  of  Philadelphia,  in  allusion  to 
P.  W.  Otterbein,  the  holy,  the  great  Otterbein,  whose 
funeral  discourse  it  was  intended  to  be.  Solemnity 
marked  the  silent  meeting  in  the  German  Church, 
where  were  assembled  the  members  of  our  Conference 
and  many  of  the  clergy  of  the  city.  Forty  years  have 
I known  the  retiring  modesty  of  this  man  of  God,  tow- 
ering majestic  above  his  fellows  in  learning,  wisdom, 
and  grace,  yet  seeking  to  be  known  only  of  God  and 
the  people  of  God.” 

The  Church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ  spread, 
and  increased  in  numbers  and  influence,  for  nearly  three 
generations  without  a break,  but  at  last  serious  differ- 
ences developed,  and  in  it  was  repeated  an  experience 
that  has  come  to  many  other  ecclesiastical  bodies. 

The  years  1885  and  1889  mark  an  era  in  the  history 
of  this  Church.  In  the  General  Conference  of  1885 
steps  were  taken  to  revise  the  Confession  of  Faith  and 
to  prepare  an  amended  Constitution  and  a commission 
for  this  purpose  was  created.  The  revisions  having 
been  made,  the  documents  were  submitted  to  the  people 
of  the  Church.  Various  modifications  and  additions 
were  involved  which  called  forth  considerable  opposi- 
tion and,  among  other  things,  there  was  dissent  from 
the  changes  in  the  rule  in  regard  to  secret  societies 
which  was  modified  so  as  to  make  it  less  stringent 


370 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


When  the  General  Conference  of  1889  met  in  the 
city  of  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  the  votes  were  counted 
it  was  found  that  the  revisions  had  received  two-thirds 
of  all  the  votes  cast.  Then  the  bishops,  on  the  13th  of 
May,  formally  said  to  the  General  Conference  and  the 
Church  that:  “The  result  being  the  required  two- 
thirds,  we  do  hereby  publish  and  proclaim  the  docu- 
ment thus  voted  upon  to  be  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  Constitution  of  the  Church  of  the  United  Brethren 
in  Christ,  and  we  hereby  pass  from  under  the  old  and 
legislate  under  the  amended  Constitution.” 

This  proclamation  having  been  made,  Bishop  Milton 
Wright,  with  fourteen  others  of  the  twenty  who  in  the 
General  Conference  had  voted  against  approval,  arose 
and  left  the  hall  and  went  to  another  place  in  the  city 
of  York,  and  proceeded  to  organize  themselves,  assert- 
ing that  they  were  the  true  General  Conference  be- 
cause of  certain  irregularities  and  illegalities  in  connec- 
tion with  the  actions  on  the  revision.  Having  organ- 
ized they  elected  bishops  and  other  officers  and  trans- 
acted such  business  as  they  deemed  necessary. 

As  they  adhered  to  the  documents  as  they  were  be- 
fore the  proposed  revision  this  body  became  known  as 
“ The  Church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ  (Old 
Constitution).” 

This  division  was  followed  by  a period  of  litigation 
through  which  the  Church  of  the  Old  Constitution  en- 
deavored to  establish  its  claim  in  the  courts  that  it  was 
the  real  Church  of  the  United  Brethren  in  Christ.  It 
was  claimed  for  and  by  it  that  the  revision  had  not  re- 
ceived the  requisite  vote  because  so  many  in  the  Church 
had  not  voted  at  all.  It  sought  possession  of  the  United 
Brethren  Publishing  House  claiming  that  the  section 


GERMAN-AMERICAN  METHODISM  371 


that  had  accepted  the  revised  Confession  of  Faith  and 
the  new  Constitution  had  ceased  to  be  the  true  Church  of 
the  United  Brethren  in  Christ  and  had  become  another 
and  a different  Church  and  that  doctrinally,  for  ex- 
ample, it  had  ceased  to  be  Arminian  and  had  become 
Calvinistic,  and  that  the  minority  General  Conference 
was  the  rightful  representative  of  the  real  Church. 
The  courts,  however,  left  the  majority  in  possession. 
Claims  were  made  to  other  property  also  but  the  courts 
did  not  disturb  the  holders  thereof. 

At  the  beginning  the  Church  of  the  Old  Constitution 
had  a membership  of  between  fifteen  and  twenty 
thousand.  While  there  are  variations,  the  two  Churches 
are  regarded  as  essentially  the  same  and  both  bodies 
are  very  similar  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Some  time  ago  there  was  talk  of  combining  the  Con- 
gregationalists,  the  Methodist  Protestants,  and  the 
United  Brethren  in  Christ  but  the  negotiations  failed. 
More  recently  there  was  a movement  to  unite  the 
Methodist  Protestants  and  the  United  Brethren  and 
both  General  Conferences  declared  in  its  favor  but  An- 
nual Conferences  in  both  bodies  were  opposed  and  it  was 
believed  that  a two-thirds  vote  of  the  people  could  not 
be  secured  for  the  combination.  The  movement  is  now 
regarded  as  having  lost  its  force.  Suggestions  have 
been  made  looking  towards  a union  of  the  United 
Brethren  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches  but  as 
yet  nothing  has  resulted. 

Another  Methodistic  and  Episcopal  body  which  at 
first  appealed  especially  to  Germans  and  persons  of 
German  descent  in  America  came  quite  directly  from 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

When  it  arose  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had 


372 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


no  special  department  of  German  work,  and  the  new 
denomination  began  because  there  had  developed  a feel- 
ing that  the  German  people  should  be  cared  for  specially 
by  themselves  and  in  their  own  tongue. 

This  other  Evangelistic  and  Methodistic  movement 
among  the  Germanic  people  in  the  United  States  had 
its  beginning  in  Eastern  Pennsylvania  where  there 
were  large  German  populations. 

In  the  eighteenth  century  a Lutheran  family  named 
Albrecht  emigrated  from  Germany  and  settled  in  this 
part  of  Pennsylvania.  To  these  parents  a son  was  born 
on  the  first  day  of  May,  in  the  year  1759,  near  Pottstown, 
Montgomery  County,  in  that  state,  and  this  son  was 
called  Jacob — Jacob  Albrecht — but  the  name  soon  was 
Americanized,  and  he  became  known  as  Jacob  Albright. 

This  Jacob  Albright  removed  to  Lancaster  County, 
Pennsylvania,  where  he  prospered  as  a manufacturer  of 
tiles  and  brick.  While  there,  the  death  of  several  of 
his  children  in  rapid  succession  in  1790  profoundly  im- 
pressed him,  and  it  is  related  that  a sermon  in  connec- 
tion with  the  funeral  services  led  him  to  repentance, 
and,  soon  after,  he  was  spiritually  changed.  One  ac- 
count states  that  he  was  converted  under  the  preach- 
ing of  an  independent  minister  named  Reagel. 

After  his  penitence  and  conversion,  though  he  had 
been  trained  a Lutheran,  Mr.  Jacob  Albright  joined  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  which,  on  account  of 
his  devotion  and  his  gifts  in  address,  he  was  made  a 
licensed  exhorter,  and  so  had  authority  to  hold  devo- 
tional meetings  and  to  deliver  religious  discourses. 

As  already  stated  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
at  that  time  conducted  no  distinctive  work  among  the 
German  population,  but  Mr.  Albright,  who  spoke  Ger- 


GERMAN-AMERICAN  METHODISM  373 


man,  and,  indeed,  ‘‘  had  little  knowledge  of  the  Eng- 
lish language,”  * having  become  deeply  interested  in  the 
religious  condition  of  his  fellow  Germans,  and  recogniz- 
ing the  general  decline  of  religious  life  and  the  cor- 
ruption of  doctrines  and  religious  practices  that  pre- 
vailed in  the  German  Churches  in  his  section  of  the 
country,  undertook  to  work  a reform. 

Determined  to  devote  himself  to  the  German-speak- 
ing people,  of  whom  there  were  many  in  the  eastern 
and  central  parts  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  he  be- 
gan holding  German  services  and  preaching  in  1796. 
He  was  under  the  influence  of  what  he  deemed  a 
divine  call,  and  so  to  more  efficiently  prosecute  what  he 
believed  was  his  special  mission  of  working  a religious 
reform  among  the  Pennsylvania  Germans,  he  gave  up 
his  business  and  devoted  himself  to  evangelistic  efforts. 

He  travelled  throughout  a considerable  part  of  the 
country  preaching  the  Gospel  wherever  he  had  oppor- 
tunity, in  churches,  schoolhouses,  private  homes,  on 
public  roads,  and  wherever  he  could  reach  the  people. 
At  first  he  had  no  thought  of  founding  a denomina- 
tion, but,  being  urged  to  organize  his  converts,  he 
formed  classes  and  gathered  congregations,  and  by  1800 
a number  of  societies  existed  and,  as  they  multiplied, 
regular  helpers  were  raised  up,  a district  was  formed, 
and  Mr.  Albright  became  its  head,  and  so  1800  has 
been  regarded  as  the  epochal  year  of  the  organization. 

The  first  general  gathering  or  council  took  place  in 
November,  1803.  It  was  composed  of  Mr.  Albright, 
his  two  assistants  and  fourteen  of  the  leading  men. 
This  Conference  unanimously  recognized  Albright  as 
a minister  of  the  Gospel — “a  genuine  evangelical 

^ Doctor  Berger,  “ History  of  United  Brethren,”  p.  193. 


374 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


preacher” — and  as  such  solemnly  ordained  him  by 
the  laying  on  of  hands  as  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
xiii.  1-3. 

In  1807  the  first  regular  Conference  was  held  in 
Kleinfeltersville,  Pennsylvania.  It  was  composed  of 
twenty-eight  ministers  and  officers  of  the  Association, 
and  this  body  elected  the  Reverend  Jacob  Albright  a 
general  superintendent  or  bishop,  and  authorized  him 
to  compile  a Scriptural  creed  and  to  draw  up  a plan  of 
organization  or  church  discipline.  Thus  in  Eastern 
Pennsylvania  there  developed  a distinct  denomination 
among  the  German-speaking  population. 

Bishop  Albright  saw  the  culmination  of  his  efiPorts 
when  the  societies  he  had  formed  were  combined  into  a 
new  Church,  but  he  did  not  remain  long  to  enjoy  the 
fruits  of  his  labors,  for  about  six  months  after  he  was 
made  bishop  he  passed  from  labor  to  reward.  He  died 
May  18,  1808,  at  Muhlbach,  Lebanon  County,  Pennsyl- 
vania. 

He  was  a plain  man  with  a plain  education,  but  he 
was  characterized  by  deep  piety,  unfailing  devotion  to 
his  work,  and  intense  earnestness,  and  he  was  highly 
esteemed  by  Bishop  Asbury. 

On  account  of  the  name  of  the  founder  of  this  new 
denomination  its  people  were  called  Albright  Method- 
ists, the  Albrights,  or  Albright’s  People — Die  Albrecht's 
Leute.  A certificate  of  ordination  issued  by  Bishop 
Albright  in  1807  shows  that  his  followers  at  that  time 
were  known  as  “ New  Methodists.”  Dr.  R.  Yeakel,  in 
his  history,  referring  to  the  Conference  of  1807,  says : 
“ This  Conference  gave  the  Church  it  represented  no 
distinct  name.  . . . But  the  Conference  adopted  a 

Conference  name  by  calling  itself  ‘ The  Newly-Formed 


GERMAN-AMERICAN  METHODISM  375 


Methodist  Conference.’  Albright  had  been  a Method- 
ist, and  was  such  still  in  his  heart,  faith,  and  practice. 
If  he  had  been  allowed  to  fulfill  his  mission  to  the  Ger- 
mans within  the  Methodist  Church,  he  would  have  re- 
mained in  that  Church.”  * 

Though  the  founder  had  been  removed,  men  had 
been  raised  up  to  carry  on  the  work.  Prominent 
among  them  were  George  Miller,  an  excellent  writer ; 
John  Walter,  an  eloquent  preacher;  and  John  Dreis- 
bach,  a leader  and  organizer,  and  these  men  built  on 
the  foundations  Albright  had  laid. 

In  1809  a second  Conference  was  held,  at  which 
the  Book  of  Discipline,  begun  by  Bishop  Albright 
and  completed  by  George  Miller,  was  adopted,  and 
the  name  agreed  upon  was  “The  So-called  Albright 
People.” 

In  1816  the  first  General  Conference  was  held  in 
Union  County,  Pennsylvania.  This  was  composed  of 
all  the  elders  in  the  ministry  of  the  Church.  It  adopted 
as  the  name  of  the  organization  “ The  Evangelical  As- 
sociation,” which  is  its  proper  appellation  at  the  present 
time. 

The  Evangelical  Association  has  a polity  quite  like 
that  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  its  first 
Discipline  was  mainly  a translation  into  German  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline  of  that  Church.  Though  it  does  not 
use  the  title,  it  is  episcopal  and  has  bishops.  It  is  Ar- 
minian  in  doctrine,  connectional  in  organization,  and 
episcopal  in  government,  with  a General  Conference 
which  meets  once  in  four  years,  while  in  worship  and 
usages  it  is  Methodistic,  and  generally  resembles  the 

^ Dr.  R,  Yeakel,  “ History  of  the  Evangelical  Association,”  pp.  84, 

86. 


376 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  which  Albright  had  be- 
longed. 

This  body  also  has  shared  in  the  disruptive  experiences 
of  other  ecclesiastical  organizations,  and  from  the  Evan- 
gelical Association  there  went  out  ministers  and  mem- 
bers who  formed  another  independent  Church. 

This  was  preceded  by  controversies  of  several  years’ 
duration  touching  differences  of  opinion  largely  as  to 
matters  of  administration  and  the  power  of  the  General 
Conference.  “In  1887  the  General  Conference  as- 
sumed original  jurisdiction  in  the  ^case  of  an  accused 
brother,  and  proceeded  to  try  him  in  a manner  which 
called  forth  the  most  earnest  protestations  from  many 
of  its  members,”  it  was  alleged,  and  the  Church  was 
resolved  into  two  parties  termed  the  “ Majority  ” and 
the  “ Minority.”  Certain  bishops  were  involved  in  the 
controversies  and  in  actions  which  grew  out  of  them. 
It  was  asserted  that  “ Ministers  were  suspended  without 
charges  or  trial,”  and  that  “ Proceedings  and  verdicts 
of  properly  constituted  tribunals  were,  without  a shadow 
of  warrant  under  the  law,  declared  void.”  Differences 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  Discipline  resulted  in  call- 
ing two  General  Conferences  in  1891,  the  “ Majority  ” 
meeting  in  Indianapolis,  and  the  “ Minority  ” in  Phila- 
delphia. The  “ Minority  ” proposed  an  arbitration  by 
“ disinterested  Christian  brethren  of  other  denomina- 
tions ” but  this  was  not  accepted.  Litigation  was  re- 
sorted to  and  the  courts  ruled  against  the  “ Minority.” 
Then  in  October,  1894,  members  of  the  East  Pennsylva- 
nia Conference  met  in  convention  and  reorganized  as  the 
East  Pennsylvania  Conference  of  the  United  Evangel- 
ical Church,  and  issued  a call  for  a General  Conference 
to  meet  in  Naperville,  Illinois,  on  the  29th  of  Novem- 


GERMAN-AMERICAN  METHODISM  377 


ber,  of  the  same  year,  and  there,  on  the  thirtieth  day  of 
November,  1894,  organized  the  United  Evangelical 
Church,  with  fifty-five  thousand  members. 

Some  modifications  have  been  made  in  the  old  econ- 
omy but  the  similarities  between  the  two  bodies  still 
are  very  marked,  and  there  has  been  a recent  move- 
ment to  reunite  the  two  and  make  them  one  Church. 

All  these  bodies  which  had  a German  origin  now  use 
English  as  well  as  German  in  their  services,  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  an 
exceedingly  extensive  German  work  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  with  whole  Conferences  for  German 
preachers  and  people. 

Some  of  these  modifications  are  likely  to  strengthen 
the  fraternizing  spirit  and  to  result  in  closer  relations 
between  the  several  bodies. 


XXXIY 


IS  UNION  OF  THE  DENOMINATIONS  DE- 
SIEABLE? 

IS  the  organic  unity  of  the  separate  and  different 
denominations  desirable  or  necessary  ? That  is  a 
fundamental  question.  If  it  is  not  necessary  or 
desirable  then  it  is  a matter  of  little  or  no  moment,  but 
if  it  is  a duty,  or  even  if  it  is  desirable,  then  it  is  a ques- 
tion demanding  serious  consideration. 

Being  a current  question  it  demands  attention,  and, 
to-day,  it  is  receiving  much  attention  and,  in  some  in- 
stances, possibly  more  attention  than  it  deserves. 

Probably  the  most  who  discuss  the  matter  consider 
merely  the  question  of  denominational  union  in  the  ab- 
stract, on  the  general  assertion  that  there  are  too  many 
denominations,  rather  than  the  concrete  question  as  to 
union  between  two  or  more  denominations  in  particular. 
But  the  question  is  not  to  be  determined  in  the  abstract 
but  in  the  concrete  as  between  two  or  more  bodies. 

If  one  asks  : Is  general  Church  unity  necessary,  and 
is  it  a divine  duty  to  bring  all  denominations  together 
as  one  organism  and  under  a single  ecclesiastical  gov- 
ernment ? the  student  of  Church  history  will  probably 
answer  in  the  negative. 

But  one  may  say  did  not  Jesus  pray : ‘‘  That  they  all 
may  be  one  ” and  that  the  disciples  “ may  be  perfected 
in  one  ” ? He  certainly  did,  but  did  He  mean  the  or- 
ganic unity  of  different  denominations,  and  is  the  eccle- 

378 


IS  UNION  DESIRABLE? 


3Y9 


siastical  combination  of  all  under  one  government  the 
only  possible  oneness  and  the  only  possible  oneness 
Jesus  meant  ? Is  there  not  the  “ unity  of  the  Spirit  ” 
and  may  not  persons  having  the  “ unity  of  the  Spirit  ” 
be  one,  though  they  are  under  different  varieties  of 
Church  government  with  variations  in  ecclesiastical 
usage  ? The  “ unity  of  the  Spirit  ’’  is  one  thing  and 
ecclesiastical  unity  is  another. 

So  when  one  asks  : Is  Church  unity  necessary  ? the 
answer  must  be  that  Denominational  unity  is  not  al- 
ways absolutely  necessary.  To  the  other  question,  Is 
organic  unity  desirable  ? the  answer  must  be  that  the 
organic  unity  of  denominations  may,  or  may  not,  be 
desirable,  and  that  is  to  be  determined,  not  by  abstract 
theorizings  but  by  actual  circumstances. 

Adherents  of  Protestantism  that  broke  away  from 
the  Church  of  Rome  certainly  would  not  hold  that  there 
should  be  organic  unity  under  all  circumstances,  and  no 
genuine  Protestant  would  want  to  unite  Protestantism 
with  the  Papal  organization,  and,  logically,  no  Protes- 
tant would  hold  that  all  existing  Churches  should  be 
united  into  a single  body  and  that  all  Christians  must 
be  under  one  ecclesiastical  government. 

Speaking  generally,  under  present  conditions,  the  ab- 
solute unity  of  all  Churches  is  not  required,  and  yet 
there  may  be  denominations  that  could  consolidate  and 
would  do  well  to  unite. 

Union,  however,  should  not  be  simply  for  union,  or 
merely  for  bigness,  but  for  something  beyond  and  bet- 
ter than  mere  combination.  Those  who  contemplate 
a consolidation  with  another  Church  should  ask  : Will 
things  be  better  ? Will  we  combined  do  better  work  ? 

If  things  will  be  worse,  then  it  would  be  a crime  to 


380 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


combine.  If  they  will  be  no  better,  then  there  is  no 
advantage  in  the  consolidation  and  the  proposed  union 
is  not  necessary.  If  things  will  not  be  better,  or  not 
much  better,  then  what  is  the  use  of  the  trouble,  the 
effort,  and  the  risk  involved  in  the  suggested  change  ? 
If  there  is  little  or  nothing  to  be  gained  by  a combina- 
tion there  is,  probably,  much  to  be  lost  and  Churches 
should  consider  these  things. 

If  two  denominations  are  exactly  alike  and  belong  to 
the  same  ecclesiastical  family  it  would  seem  that  a 
question  as  to  union  between  them  should  be  answered 
in  the  affirmative,  but  the  fundamental  fact  of  exact 
sameness  should  first  be  ascertained. 

If  they  are  exactly  alike  how  did  they  ever  separate, 
and  why  have  they  remained  separate  so  many  years  ? 
The  fact  that  they  separated  and  have  continued  apart 
so  long  starts  a suspicion  that  they  cannot  be  exactly 
the  same,  or  quite  as  much  alike  as  some  would  like  to 
think. 

Nevertheless  these  differences  might  disappear  and, 
under  some  circumstances,  a harmonious  union  might 
result. 

Even  the  strongest  friend  of  union  must  scrutinize 
and  challenge  propositions  for  union,  until  he  is 
thoroughly  satisfied  that  it  is  perfectly  safe,  for  mat- 
ters easily  overlooked  might  forbid  a union  or  might 
make  it  a mere  formality  on  paper  and  not  a real 
unification  in  spirit. 

Combinations  under  some  conditions  would  be  ex- 
ceedingly unfortunate,  and  either  side  has  a right  to 
ask.  What  will  be  the  effect  of  bringing  in  people  of 
another  and  adverse  kind  to  rule  in  whole  or  part  ? 

The  removal  of  friction  between  two  kindred  de- 


IS  UNION  DESIRABLE? 


381 


nominations  is  to  be  desired,  but  would  the  spirit  that 
feeds  friction  be  removed  by  uniting  the  antagonists  ? 
If  there  is  friction  and  one  Church  is  suspicious  or 
antagonistic  towards  a sister  Church,  there  would  seem 
to  be  little  probability  of  union,  and,  if  the  same  feel- 
ings are  carried  into  a combination  between  them,  there 
might  be  no  real  unity  of  spirit  though  there  was  an 
external  union.  Then  the  friction  would  be  within 
rather  than  without.  But  friction  may  be  removed 
without  organic  unity  and  it  should  be  removed  before 
organic  union  is  attempted. 

During  the  course  of  a generation  or  two  of  separa- 
tion, denominations  which  are  historically  or  theoretic- 
ally similar  may  diverge  and  suffer  many  decided  dif- 
ferences so  that  they  are  not  precisely  the  same  as  they 
were  at  the  beginning.  They  have  had  a different  his- 
tory and  have  stood  for  different  things.  Changes  in 
both  have  occurred  in  polity  and  in  other  things  so  that 
they  are  not  ecclesiastically  the  same,  and  in  the  same 
way  practical  methods  are  no  longer  exactly  the  same, 
and  it  is  just  possible  that  there  have  grown  up  differ- 
ences of  a theological  nature. 

All  these  things  of  history  and  of  time-develop- 
ment have  not  been  forgotten,  and  an  attachment  to 
variations  has  grown.  If  they  persist,  even  in  senti- 
ment, they  would  not  strongly  cement  a union,  and 
they  would  not  make  for  union  of  sentiment  or  for 
unity  of  spirit.  If  antagonistic  sentiments  are  brought 
in  they  will  not  tend  to  real  harmony.  Some  of  these 
things  may  not  be  vital,  but,  essential  or  non-essential, 
they  should  be  essentially  eliminated  before  the  pro- 
posed union  is  consummated  ; for  the  mere  form  of  vot- 
ing union  is  not  enough  to  make  heart  unity. 


382 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Doubtless  more  is  expected  of  organic  unity  than  the 
theorists  are  likely  to  realize.  They  think  it  will  for- 
ever remove  many  evils  and  there  will  be  a practically 
perfect  ecclesiasticism.  But  they  forget  that  when  in 
the  middle  ages  Christendom  was  supposed  to  be  under 
a single  government,  corruption  was  rampant  and 
despotism  ran  wild. 

Further  a unified  ecclesiastical  government  may  not 
mean  a complete  unity.  Even  to-day  the  Roman 
Church  has  its  divisions  within  itself,  and  Mohammed- 
anism has  its  sects. 

So  some  strong  assertions  frequently  made  in  favor  of 
Church  union  are  not  well-founded.  Thus  it  is  said 
that  the  organic  union  of  two  denominations  would 
prevent  the  duplication  of  Churches  and  various  institu- 
tions and  enterprises,  but  this  is  not  a certain  preven- 
tion of  duplication,  for  where  there  is  only  one  denom- 
ination there  are  duplications  that  some  call  unneces- 
sary, and  there  are  rival  and  antagonistic  Churches  in 
the  same  denomination.  Unity  does  not  prevent  this 
and  the  lack  of  unity  is  not  the  cause.  These  things 
usually  grow  out  of  local  ambitions,  differences  in 
judgment,  and  other  conditions  which  might  not  be  af- 
fected or  prevented  by  ecclesiastical  oneness. 

Neither  is  organic  unity  a certain  preventive  of  local 
jealousies  and  antagonisms,  for  they  are  found  where 
there  is  only  a single  denomination  and  no  competing 
denominations. 

It  is  said  that  unity  will  be  more  economical  because 
there  will  be  fewer  churches  and  fewer  ministers  will 
be  needed.  Then  what  will  become  of  the  surplus  min- 
isters ? Will  they  be  discharged  and  where  will  they 
go  to  get  work  and  support  ? If  there  are  too  many 


IS  UNION  DESIRABLE? 


383 


preachers  why  are  the  Churches  continually  crying  out 
for  more  ? Again,  how  many  church  buildings  could 
be  abandoned  ? Perhaps  a few  here  and  there  would 
be  given  up,  but  how  many  could  be  abandoned  when 
even  now  there  are  not  enough  church  edifices  to  accom- 
modate the  population  ? If  there  are  not  too  many 
churches  even  a combined  body  would  need  them  all. 

If  churches  of  one  or  other  sister  denomination  are 
not  needed  in  the  same  locality  a little  fraternal  com- 
mon sense  can  adjust  that.  Whether  they  are  needed 
is  a matter  of  opinion  and  the  people  themselves  can 
find  out  whether  they  are  wanted  and  whether  they 
can  carry  them. 

A few  facts  like  these  very  plainly  show  that  organic 
unity  may  not  bring  all  that  some  advocates  seem  to 
anticipate. 

The  law  of  supply  and  demand  naturally  regulates  in 
the  business  world,  and  it  is  so  with  Churches,  and  if 
left  alone  a Church  will  prove  its  right  to  exist  or  its 
duty  to  desist.  It  depends  upon  the  people  and  their 
ecclesiastical  officers  whether  there  is  one  church  or 
two  or  more  competing  churches.  The  great  factor  is 
intelligence  joined  with  love  for  the  interests  of  Christ’s 
kingdom,  and,  if  there  is  not  good  judgment  and  com- 
mon sense  in  two  or  more  denominations,  there  might 
not  be  with  the  same  people  consolidated  into  a single 
denomination. 

The  greatest  requisite  is  the  unity  of  the  Christly 
Spirit,  and  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  practical  con- 
duct of  the  people  and  of  the  organized  denominations. 
Centralization  within  one  ecclesiastical  government 
does  not  give  that,  but  it  may  exist  either  in  a union  of 
Churches  or  amid  diverse  denominations,  so  that  there 


384 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


can  be  mutual  comity,  common  sense,  and  Christly  con- 
sideration among  the  denominations  without  the  loss  of 
individual  freedom  or  denominational  existence  in  a 
fusion  or  organic  union. 

Nevertheless  there  is  a power  in  the  concentration  of 
small  bodies  into  one  large  body,  but  the  extremist  is 
apt  to  overlook  the  fact  that  denominational  divisions 
have  a decided  value,  and  the  denomination  is  not  to  be 
discounted  because  it  is  regarded  as  a division. 

Division  in  other  departments  is  regarded  as  an  ad- 
vantage and  so  efficiency  experts  favor  specialization 
and  division  of  labor,  and  the  same  principle  may  apply 
to  Church  work.  One  denomination  holds  one  thing 
and  works  in  one  way,  and  another  denomination  de- 
votes itself  to  another  particular  and  works  in  another 
way.  So  one  denomination  checks  another,  and  different 
denominations  stimulate  each  other. 

Denominations  have  their  place  and  yet,  in  instances, 
they  may  be  unnecessary,  and  the  question  as  to  the 
reduction  of  the  number  is  a proper  one  for  consider- 
ation. Perhaps  some  should  cease,  perhaps  some 
should  combine  with  other  Churches,  but  these  things 
are  to  be  determined  not  by  some  abstract  theory  of 
the  duty  of  all  denominations  to  unite  in  a single 
Church  but  by  practical  conditions  and  natural  re- 
lationships, and  by  actual  needs  and  advantages,  and 
each  case  must  be  decided  on  its  own  merits. 


XXXV 


THE  DIFFICULTIES 

IT  is  one  thing  to  favor  organic  unity  in  the  ab- 
stract, but  a very  different  thing  to  favor  a par- 
ticular plan  of  union.  The  general  principle 
might  be  admitted,  but  the  working  out  of  details  has 
deterred  the  most  enthusiastic. 

Thus  some  of  the  strongest  advocates  of  denomina- 
tional union  have  been  brought  to  a sudden  halt  by  a 
new  view  of  a merely  superficial  point,  and  to  a dead 
halt  by  unsuspected  diflSculties  which  have  suddenly 
developed. 

In  the  consideration  and  in  the  negotiations  there  are 
two  sides  and  two  views.  Each  side  must  be  thoroughly 
honest  and  must  not  betray  the  trust  committed  to  it, 
and,  though  neither  side  may  be  suspicious,  each  one 
feels  it  must  be  cautious,  so  as  to  fairly  protect  the  in- 
terests of  its  own  Church. 

Sometimes  union  is  not  possible,  when  each  side  re- 
mains true  to  its  denominational  principles,  under  some 
circumstances,  but  even  when  unification  is  feasible  it 
is  seldom  easy. 

At  a given  time,  or  in  a particular  case,  there  may  be 
insuperable  difiiculties  that,  for  the  time  being,  at  least, 
will  make  unification  absolutely  impossible,  and  often 
there  may  be  such  difficulties,  that,  though  there  is  the 
sincerest  desire  on  both  sides  for  unity,  it  will  be  nec- 
essary to  postpone  negotiations,  perhaps,  indefinitely  or 
for  a long  time. 


385 


386 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


Observation  and  test  show  that  it  is  a great  mistake 
to  imagine  that  the  unifying  of  two  denominations  is 
an  easy  task.  It  has  often  been  seen  that  it  is  difficult 
to  combine  two  local  churches  of  the  same  denomina- 
tion. If  so,  it  must  be  much  more  difficult  to  unite 
two  denominations  and  make  them  truly  one. 

That  the  difficulties  are  very  real  has  been  demon- 
strated by  the  fact  that  there  have  been  very  few,  if 
any,  complete  unions  or  reunions  in  American  Method- 
ism, notwithstanding  there  have  been  very  earnest 
efforts  to  bring  about  unification.  Indeed,  as  a matter 
of  fact,  no  complete  union  has  really  been  consum- 
mated between  any  of  the  Methodistic  divisions,  unless 
the  reunion  of  the  Methodist  Protestants  be  regarded 
as  an  exception,  but  in  that  case  there  had  been  no  very 
radical  separation,  for,  at  the  time,  it  was  declared  to 
be  temporary  or  conditional,  until  relieved  from  con- 
nection with  slavery,  and  it  would  seem  that  even  then 
the  union  did  not  embrace  all. 

That  difficulties  have  been  actually  experienced  in 
the  attempted  union  of  Methodistic  bodies  may  be 
quickly  seen  by  those  who  are  familiar  with  the  history. 
Thus  a branch  of  the  Methodist  Protestants  and  the 
Wesleyan  body  that  withdrew  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  actually  voted  and  began  a combina- 
tion which  never  became  a complete  union,  for  some 
stood  out  and  never  combined.  Then  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  of  Canada  was  supposed  by  Confer- 
ence action  to  have  united  with  the  British  Wesleyans 
of  Canada,  but  parties  who  denied  the  right  of  the  Con- 
ference to  pass  the  people  over  bodily  continued  the 
Canadian  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  for  many  years. 

The  most  conspicuous  illustration  of  difficulties  in  the 


THE  DIFFICULTIES 


387 


way  of  union  is  in  the  case  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 
For  fifty  years,  beginning  with  1865,  efforts  have  been 
made  to  unite  these  two  Churches  and  yet  the  union 
has  not  yet  taken  place,  and  the  same  is  true  with  efforts 
to  unite  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  with  one, 
and  with  both,  of  these  bodies. 

A noticeable  fact  is  that  they  have  continued  in  sep- 
aration longer  than  they  were  originally  together. 

Now,  in  1915,  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church  has 
been  separated  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
for  about  eighty-eight  years,  and,  so  to  speak,  those  who 
formed  it  had  been  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
only  forty-four  or  forty-five  years,  that  is  to  say  from 
the  time  the  original  Church  was  organized.  In  other 
words  the  Methodist  Protestants  have  been  out  of  the 
Church  nearly  twice  as  long  as  they  had  been  a part  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  or  nearly  twice  as 
long  as  the  age  of  the  original  Church  when  they  with- 
drew. 

Turning  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
it  will  be  seen  that  it  has  been  separated  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  about  seventy-one  years, 
or  from  1845  to  1915,  while,  so  to  speak,  its  founders 
were  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  only  sixty-one 
or  sixty-two  years,  that  is  to  say  from  1784  to  1845. 
So  that  it  has  been  separated,  it  might  be  said,  longer 
than  its  people  were  a part  of  the  original  Church. 

This  continued  continuance  of  these  divisions  has 
been  one  of  the  serious  difficulties  in  the  way  of  re- 
union, for  as  the  years  of  separation  go  on  the  diver- 
gencies tend  to  increase. 

That  it  is  a difficult  thing  to  unite  denominations, 


388 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


and  even  those  that  have  had  a kindred  origin  and  that 
preserve  similar  characteristics,  is  shown  in  the  case  of 
the  two  colored  Episcopal  Methodist  denominations, 
the  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the 
African  Methodist  Episcopal  Zion  Church,  that  be- 
came independent  early  in  the  nineteenth  century. 
These  Churches  began  to  talk  about  uniting  fifty-one 
years  ago,  and  they  have  talked  off  and  on  ever  since, 
and  still  they  are  not  one,  but  two,  as  they  have  been 
for  about  a hundred  years. 

It  is  also  remarkable  that  up  to  the  present  time 
no  denomination  that  Tvent  out  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  has  ever  returned  to  this  “Mother 
Church.”  What  the  future  may  bring  about  remains 
to  be  seen. 

These  difficulties  in  the  way  of  union,  however,  are 
not  peculiar  to  Methodistic  bodies.  The  Methodist  Prot- 
estant and  the  United  Brethren  Churches  voted  to  unite 
several  years  ago  but  difficulties  developed  and  the 
union  has  not  yet  been  consummated.  So  the  Presby- 
terian Church  and  the  Cumberland  Presbyterians  voted 
to  unite,  and  it  was  decreed  that  the  union  had  taken 
place,  but  there  has  been  much  litigation,  and  still 
everything  has  not  been  settled  and  some  who  belonged 
to  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church  still  are  out- 
standing and  resist  the  union.  The  Presbyterians  and 
the  Southern  Presbyterians  have  not  yet  succeeded  in 
uniting,  and  the  Baptists  have  not  reunited  with  the 
Southern  Convention  Baptists.  Other  bodies  also  have 
had  similar  experiences. 

The  difficulties  in  the  way  of  ecclesiastical  union 
have  their  roots  in  various  things.  Thus  there  are  dif- 
ferences in  teaching  and  in  habits  of  thought.  The 


THE  DIFFICULTIES 


389 


people,  even  in  similar  Churches,  have  a different  way 
of  looking  at  questions  and  a different  way  of  think- 
ing, and  in  matters  of  practical  action  they  have  differ- 
ent ways  of  doing  things. 

There  may  be  doctrinal  difficulties  even  where  in  the 
main  there  is  general  agreement.  There  may  be  serious 
differences  on  features  of  Church  polity.  Particularly, 
and  frequently,  difficulties  are  related  to  property  ques- 
tions, bequests,  educational  endowments,  and  trust 
funds.  These  were  intended  for  a specific  denomina- 
tion and  cannot  be  alienated  from  their  purpose,  and 
the  inviolability  of  contract  must  be  recognized. 

There  may  be  a property  trust  to  be  used  by  a par- 
ticular Church,  and  by  no  other,  and  to  be  used  by  it 
under  conditions  that  existed  with  it  as  a separate 
body,  and  which  could  not  be  transferred  to  another  or 
different  body,  and  the  question  might  arise,  in  the 
case  of  a fusion  with  another  denomination,  whether 
the  fusion  did  not  make  a new  and  different  body  in 
such  a sense  that  it  would  have  no  valid  claim  upon 
the  fund,  the  real  estate,  or  other  property.  If  this 
were  so  then  the  property  would  be  imperilled  and 
might  be  claimed  by  a very  small  minority  who  did 
not  go  out,  or  go  into  the  combination,  and  who 
claim  to  represent,  and  to  be,  the  old  Church. 

All  these  questions  must  be  considered,  and  should 
be  legally  worked  out,  before  there  is  a decision  for 
union. 

There  is  always  the  difficulty  that  grows  out  of  at- 
tachment to  one’s  old  Church  and  the  Church  of  one’s 
fathers,  and  a repugnance  to  the  obliteration  of  ven- 
erable peculiarities.  So  most  people  would  be  opposed 
to  combination  if  through  it  would  come  something 


390 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


radically  different  from,  and  not  as  pleasing  as  they 
had  in  their  old  Church.  Hence,  if  union  will  destroy 
the  characteristics  of  one  or  the  other  Church,  that 
should  be  distinctly  understood,  as  it  would  prevent  a 
unified  spirit,  and  if  it  would  have  as  its  outcome  the 
destruction  of  what  had  been  regarded  as  essential, 
doubtless  many  would  not  only  not  favor,  but  would 
actively  oppose  the  unification. 

If  there  is  something  to  be  gained,  there  may  be 
something  to  be  lost.  If  there  is  something  to  be 
acquired,  there  may  be  something  to  be  given  up. 
These  things  should  be  tabulated  and  scrutinized,  and 
then  the  Churches  must  strike  a balance  before  they 
can  determine  whether  the  proposed  union  will  pay 
materially,  numerically,  historically,  spiritually,  and 
effectively. 

Even  under  fairly  favorable  conditions  difficulties  of 
some  kind  are  likely  to  appear,  but,  if  the  union  is 
clearly  one  that  should  be  brought  about,  a way  may 
be  found  for  its  consummation,  and  where  denomina- 
tions are  closely  akin  it  would  seem  possible,  and,  on 
general  principles,  desirable  to  bring  about  a unifica- 
tion. 


XXXVI 


THE  DUTY  OF  THE  CHUECHES 

IN  a general  sense,  and  on  general  principles,  union 
is  possible  between  two  Christian  denominations, 
and  particularly  between  those  that  have  a com- 
mon origin  and  have  the  same  doctrines  and  polity. 

If  the  spirit  of  fraternity  has  been  duly  cultivated  so 
that  both  Churches  feel  that  they  are  really  one  except 
in  the  legal  form  of  consolidation,  then  what  was  a 
possibility  becomes  a strong  probability,  and,  unless 
there  are  insurmountable  legal  or  other  difficulties  in 
the  way,  the  union  is  likely  to  take  place. 

On  the  other  hand  if  there  is  not  real  fraternity  and 
a genuine  sense  of  oneness,  a real  unification  is  not 
likely  to  ensue,  no  matter  how  ambitious  may  be  the 
leaders  to  bring  it  about,  and  no  matter  how  able  may 
be  the  lawyers  who  think  they  can  remove  the  legal 
obstacles. 

An  enforced  marriage  is  not  likely  to  be  a happy 
one,  and,  if  the  hearts  have  not  come  together,  it  would 
be  a crime  to  marry  the  parties.  The  same  is  true  as 
to  the  marriage  of  two  Churches.  There  must  be 
the  preliminary  preparation  of  thought,  interest  and 
feeling. 

That  may  require  time  but  the  time  had  better  be 
taken  than  that  a mistake  be  made,  for  a hasty  mar- 
riage is  about  as  bad  as  an  enforced  one. 

The  consolidation  of  two  denominations  involves  so 

391 


392 


AMERICAN  METHODISM 


much  that  it  is  better  to  make  haste  slowly  than  to 
rush  into  an  agreement  that  will  be  followed  by  pro- 
longed regret.  If  there  is  no  joy  in  the  anticipation 
of  union  the  matter  better  be  delayed  indefinitely. 

Delay,  however,  may  not  be  in  the  way  of  real  prog- 
ress, but  may  really  accelerate  the  happy  consumma- 
tion. 

In  the  meantime  the  denominations  concerned  have 
a duty  to  perform — a duty  as  to  their  own  denomination, 
and  a duty  towards  the  other  denomination  or  denom- 
inations. 

The  first  thing  is  for  each  denomination  to  go  on 
with  its  own  work  and  to  look  after  its  own  interests  as 
though  no  consolidation  would  take  place.  It  is  bad 
policy  to  assume  the  certainty  of  a contingency.  The 
combination  may  never  take  place  and,  therefore,  to 
neglect  one’s  own  interests  might  prove  to  be  a costly 
error.  Too  much  apparent  anxiety  for  union  may  de- 
feat itself,  as  the  over-earnest  suitor  may  repel  rather 
than  attract.  A denomination  that  goes  on  aggres- 
sively with  its  own  work,  as  though  it  did  not  have 
to  combine,  but  can  get  along  by  itself,  is  more  likely 
to  attract  the  other  denomination  than  if  it  allowed  its 
interests  to  deteriorate  on  the  supposition  that  the 
other  denomination  was  certain  to  combine  with  it. 

On  the  other  hand  sheer  selfishness  is  not  a winning 
quality.  While  each  denomination  is  under  obligation 
to  carry  on  its  own  work,  it  should  be  considerate  of 
others  and  develop  the  fraternal  spirit.  If  there  are 
bitter  antagonisms  now,  and  that  spirit  is  carried  into 
the  new  ecclesiastical  combination,  it  would  not  mean 
a real  unification. 

There  is,  however,  no  necessity  for  such  antagonism, 


THE  DUTY  OF  THE  CHUKCHES  393 


but  the  two  denominations,  though  operating  in  the 
same  town,  should  cultivate  the  spirit  of  Christian  fra- 
ternity, first,  because  that  is  right,  and,  secondly,  be- 
cause they  are  looking  forward  to  a legal  oneness.  In 
this  way  they  make  a Christian  present,  and  prepare 
for  an  immediate,  and  a permanent  future  in  the  unity 
of  the  Spirit. 

There  is  no  reason  why  two  denominations  working 
in  the  same  place  should  not  work  together  in  peace. 
If  they  do  not  there  is  little  hope  of  organic  union. 

The  denominations  should  be  friendly,  fraternal, 
Christly,  considerate,  patient,  and  mutually  helpful. 
In  this  way  as  each  denomination  generously  recog- 
nizes the  rights  of  the  others,  union,  if  proper  and  de- 
sirable, will  come  spontaneously  and  the  combining 
Churches  will  be  truly  one. 


XXXVII 


STATISTICS  OF  METHODISTIC  BODIES  IN  1914 

{In  the  United  States  Only) 

These  are  from  the  figures  gathered  and  ar- 
ranged by  H.  K.  Carroll,  LL.  D.,  for  years 
in  charge  of  the  United  States  Census  of  the 
Churches. 


Denominations 

Ministers 

Churches 

Communicants 

1.  Methodist  Episcopal, 

18,881 

28,245 

3,603,265 

2.  Union  American  Methodist  Episcopal,* 

170 

212 

19,000 

3.  African  Methodist  Episcopal,* 

6,000 

6,000 

620,000 

4.  African  Union  Methodist  Protestant,* 

200 

125 

4,000 

5.  African  Methodist  Episcopal  Zion,* 

3,552 

3,180 

568,608 

6.  Methodist  Protestant, 

1,371 

2,348 

180,382 

7.  Wesleyan  Methodist, 

840 

675 

19,500 

8.  Methodist  Episcopal,  South, 

7,099 

16,691 

2,005,707 

9.  Congregational  Methodist, 

337 

333 

15,529 

10.  New  Congregational  Methodist,! 

59 

35 

1,782 

11.  Zion  Union  Apostolic,*  f 

33 

45 

3,059 

12.  Colored  Methodist  Episcopal, 

3,072 

3,196 

240,798 

13.  Primitive, 

70 

92 

8,210 

14.  Free  Methodist, 

1,199 

1,179 

33,828 

15.  Reformed  Methodist  Union  Episcopal,* 

40 

58 

4,000 

16.  Independent  Methodist, 

2 

2 

1,161 

Totals, 

41,925 

62,416 

7,328,829 

* Colored  Churches.  t Census  for  1906. 


Other  Bodies  Methodistio  in  Doctrines  and  Polity 


Denominations 

United  Brethren, 

United  Brethren  (Old  Constitution), 

Ministers 

1,953 

307 

Churches 

3,683 

503 

Communicants 

322,044 

20,972 

Total  United  Brethren, 

2,260 

4,086 

343,016 

Evangelical  Association, 

United  Evangelical  Church, 

1,031 

638 

1,663 

935 

115,243 

75,050 

Total  Evangelicals, 

1,569 

2,598 

190,293 

Adding  the  communicants  of  the  United  Brethren  and  Evangelical 
Churches  to  the  total  of  those  who  bear  the  Methodistio  title,  would  make 
a total  membership  of  7,862,138  in  the  United  States  of  America  alone. 

394 


FACTS  AND  FIGURES 


395 


In  addition  to  the  statistical  tables,  the  following  is 
condensed  from  the  “Methodist  Year  Book,”  for  1915 : 

In  1910,  the  Independent  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
of  America,  and  the  Free  Will  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  were  consolidated,  the  latter  title  remaining. 
These  are  colored  Churches. 

The  Congregational  Methodist  Church  was  organized 
in  the  South,  in  1852.  It  has  196  churches,  220  min- 
isters, and  10,969  members. 

The  Congregational  Methodist  Church,  North,  is  re- 
ported to  have  8 churches,  12  ministers,  and  1,000 
members. 

The  Primitive  Methodist  Church  of  America  was 
reported  as  having  97  churches,  77  ministers,  and 
7,295  members. 

The  British  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  (colored)  of 
Canada  was  said  to  have  20  churches,  18  ministers,  12 
local  preachers,  and  685  members. 

The  Methodist  Church  of  Canada  was  reported  in 
1914  as  having  2,869  ministers,  and  368,992  members. 

In  1911,  Methodism  in  Canada  was  calculated  as 
having  14.99  per  cent,  of  the  population. 

To  this  should  be  added  the  fact  that  for  some  years 
in  Canada  there  has  been  an  effort  to  unite  the  Presby- 
terian, the  Congregational,  and  the  Methodist  Churches, 
but,  though  representative  bodies  have  favored  the  proj- 
ect, difficulties  continue.  Some,  it  is  said,  have  de- 
clared that  if  the  union  is  made  they  will  not  enter  it, 
but  will  claim  the  property. 


Index 

The  Roman  numerals  indicate  the  chapters  where  the 
subject  is  treated.  The  Arabic  figures  indicate  the  pages. 


Abingdon,  190 

Abolition  Society,  Methodist  Epis- 
copal, VI,  52 

Abolitionists,  John  Early  on,  53 
Absorption,  193 

Activity  of  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  renewed  in  the  South,  X 
Address,  Pastoral,  XXIII;  to 
Church  South  General  Confer- 
ence, 174 

Addresses,  Fraternal,  XXV 
Adjustment,  Rules  for,  227-228 
Advances,  Fraternal,  199-218 
Africa,  Union  in,  XXXII ; United 
Church  in,  342 

African  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  II,  XXXII,  16,  17 1, 172 
African  Methodist  Episcopal  Zion 
Church,  II,  XXXII,  17,  17 1 
African  Union  Church,  II,  16 
Agitators,  30,  64 
Aid  for  the  South,  X,  95,  96 
Alabama-Georgia  Movement,  98 
Albright,  Jacob,  372-374 
Albright’s  People,  The,  374 
Allen,  Richard,  II,  16 
America,  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in,  I,  14 

America,  Wesleyan  Methodist 
Connection  of,  VI,  57 
American  Antislavery  Society,  VI 
American  Methodism,  I,  5-8,  13, 
14;  beginning  of,  13,  14;  or- 
ganization, 14 ; reorganization, 

14 

American  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  I 

Ames,  Bishop  Edward  R.,  202 
Andrew,  Bishop  James  O.,  VII, 


61,  66,  67,  103  ; action  on,  6l  ; 
not  deposed,  61-63 ; not  sus- 
pended, 61-63 

Annual  Conference,  Independence 
of.  III,  18-29;  did  not  concur, 
XI,  119-121 

Annulment  of  so-called  Plan,  12I 
Antislavery  Convention,  51 
Antislavery  Society,  American, 
VI,  51 ; New  England,  VI,  51, 
52;  New  Hampshire,  VI,  52 
Apostolic  Churches,  XXVI,  391 
“ Appeal  to  Records,”  253 
Appeal,  Without,  324-327  ; cannot 
be  deprived  of,  326 
Armstrong,  Doctor,  V,  41,  42 
Asbury,  Bishop  Francis,  360,  361- 
363,  366,  368,  369 ; consecration 
of,  360,  362 

Associate  Methodist  Reformers, 

rv,  32 

Australia,  Organic  Union  in,  241 

Baltimore,  I,  14,  30-32,  34,  193, 
242,  359,  360,  361,  364 
Bangs,  Dr.  Nathan,  III,  19,  21,  24, 
25,  27,  31 

Barrier,  No  geographical,  305 
Bascom,  Dr.  Henry  B.,  XXV,  267 
Bates,  Dr.  L.  W.,  197 
Berger,  Dr.  Daniel,  363 
Bishop,  Slave-owning,  VII,  60,  6l 
Bishops,  Church  South,  on  union, 
148,  152 

Bishops,  Methodist  Episcopal,  on 
union,  147 ; communication 
from,  165 

Boehm,  Henry,  XXXIII,  364,  368 
Boehm,  Jacob,  367 


397 


398 


INDEX 


Boehm,  Bishop  Martin,  XXXIII, 

359.  360 

Bond,  Dr.  Thomas  E.,  33 ; paper 

by,  33 

Book  Committee,  42 
Book  Concern,  117,  190 
Books  on  Union,  XXIV 
Border,  V,  IX,  36,  87,  88,  113 
Boring,  Dr.  Jesse,  244 
Boundary,  113,  114 
Branch,  Methodist  Episcopal  not  a, 
233 

Branches,  XXII,  232,  233 
Brethren,  United,  364 
British,  18 
British  Army,  361 
British  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
of  Canada  (colored),  395 
British  Wesleyan  Conference,  an- 
swer to,  55 

Brotherhood,  United,  364 
Brown,  George,  V,  40-42 
Brunner,  Dr.  John  H.,  166,  177, 

255-257 

Buckley,  Dr.  James  M.,  214 

Calhoun,  John  C.,  IX,  91 
Canada,  III,  18-20;  action  on, 
22;  British  Wesleyans  in,  183; 
case  parallel  with  Japan,  318, 

319 

Canada  Conference,  III,  20; 
action  on,  22  ; Independence  of, 
20,  22-29 

Canada,  First  Society  in,  18 
Canada,  Methodist  Church  of,  or- 
ganized, XIX,  185 
Canada,  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  of.  III,  183  ; continued, 

185 

Canada,  New  Connection  Meth- 
odists in,  185 

Canada,  Primitive  Methodists  of, 

186 

Canadian  Consolidation,  XIX,  183- 
186 

Canadian  Separation,  III ; asked 
for,  20 

Cape  May  Commission,  XXII, 
219-235,  223, 304 
Capers,  Doctor,  ^an  of,  332 


Carlton,  Dr.  Thomas,  X,  96 
Carroll,  Dr.  H.  K.,  182,  394 
Catechism,  Common,  XXVI, 
XXXII,  294-297, 338 
Centennial,  American  Methodist, 
242 

Centennial,  National,  223 
Charleston,  15 

Chattanooga  Meeting,  XXXII ; 

on  Colored  Federation,  345 
China,  X ; publishing  interests, 
XXVI 

Christian  Advocate^  New  Orleans, 
XXVI,  289 

Christian  Church,  I,  16 
Christmas  Conference,  I,  14,  361 
Church,  No  North,  VIII,  86,  loo 
Church  South,  VII,  106 ; forma- 
tion voluntary  act  of  South,  231 ; 
in  the  North,  IX,  XXVI,  91  ; 
Missionary  Society  aided,  95, 
96;  self-limited,  71,  100 
Church,  Was  it  divided  ? VII,  X, 
XI,  102,  116-121,  290 
Churches,  Equally  Apostolic,  XXVI 
Cincinnati,  48,  49,  55,  162 ; meet- 
ings in,  on  Colored  Unification, 

347.  348 

Civil  War,  IX,  92,  190,  225,  290, 

335 

Claims  and  counter  claims,  220- 
222 

Clark,  Alexander,  189 
Clay,  Henry,  IX,  91 
Cleveland,  163,  164 
Clopton,  David,  223 
Coke,  Bishop  Thomas,  D.  C.  L., 
360,  361,  362 
Collier,  Doctor,  187 
Collins,  Dr.  J.  A.,  77,  276;  amend- 
ment of,  77  ; action  upon,  77 
Colored  Church,  A New,  XVIII, 
179-183 

Colored  Church,  A Combined,  355 
Colored  Churches  in  Tentative 
Scheme,  348-350 

Colored  Episcopal  Methodists,  II, 
XXVI,  XXXII,  334,  336-337 ; 
proposed  union,  335-355  ; gen- 
erally prefer  independence,  354, 

355 


INDEX 


399 


Colored  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  of  America,  XVIII, 
XXXII,  179-183;  organized, 
180 

Colored  Organic  Union,  XXVI, 
XXXII,  299 

Colored  Organization  within  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  353 
Colored  withdrawals,  II,  16, 17, 180 
Commission,  XXII,  XXVI,  XXXI, 
XXXII;  Joint,  XXII,  XXVI, 
XXX,  XXXI,  228,  294,  301, 
322;  on  Colored  Union,  XXVI, 
XXXII ; on  Federation  of  Col- 
ored Churches,  XXVI,  XXXII, 
342-344;  to  settle  difficulties, 
208,  209,  223 

Commissions  on  Federation,  321, 
323 ; combined,  323 
Commissions,  Two,  White  and 
Colored,  345 

Common  Catechism,  XXVI, 
XXXII,  294,  297,  338 
Common  Hymnal,  XXVI,  XXXII, 
294,  297,  338 

Common  Order  of  Public  Worship, 
294.  297,  338 

Conference,  New  England,  VI ; 
New  Hampshire,  VI ; East 
Pennsylvania,  376 
Conferences,  Ecumenical,  XXIII 
Conferences,  Foreign,  III,  XXIX, 
19-29 

Conferences,  General,  see  Meth- 
odist Episcopal;  Church  South ; 
Protestant 

Conferences,  Southern,  withdrew, 
65,  106 

Conflict,  Irrepressible,  68 
Connection,  Methodist,  The  New, 
in  Canada,  185 
Connection,  New,  241 
Connection,  Wesleyan  Methodist, 
VI,  57,  59,  60,  183,  184 
Consolidation,  in  Canada,  XIX, 
183-186 

Constitution  of  1808,  XI,  118,  119 
Constitution,  Old,  XXXIII,  370 
Constitution,  United  Brethren, 
XXXIII,  369 
Contents,  9,  10,  ii 


Contingency,  XI,  109 
Convention,  Cincinnati,  162 
Convention,  Louisville,  no 
Convention  in  Nashville,  Colored, 
352,  353 

Cooperation,  XXVI,  XXXII 
Corporate  union,  302 
Council,  a new  title,  322 
Council,  Federal,  XXX,  321-327  ; 

to  be  supreme,  325 
Council,  Federated,  of  Bishops, 
Colored,  XXXII,  338-342 
Coup  d^etat,  325 

Court,  Supreme,  decision,  XI,  117- 
121 

Courtesy  to  Doctor  Pierce,  VIII, 
77,  78,  81 

Crawford,  Dr.  Morris,  D.  C.,  223 
Credentials  of  Doctor  Pierce,  74, 
79-82 

Credentials  of  fraternal  delegates, 
210,  212,  223 
Curry,  Dr.  Daniel,  170 
« Cyclopedia  of  Methodism,”  166 


Declaration,  The,  of  Southern 
Delegates,  XI,  65,  66,  104,  105, 
108,  1 15 

Declaration,  Reply  to,  XI,  104, 
108,  109,  1 13 

Delegate,  First,  from  Church  South, 
71,72 

Delegates  to  General  Conference, 
30,  201 

Delegates,  Southern,  202,  210, 218, 
223‘ 

Delegation,  Lay,  IV 
Denny,  Dr.  Collins,  276 
Denominations,  Value  of,  XXXIV, 

384 

Desirability  of  Union,  XXXIV 
Difficulties,  Adjustment  of,  227- 
230 

Difficulties  in  way  of  union, 
XXXV,  385-390 
Difficulties,  Roots  of,  389 
Dillenberg,  358 
“ Disruption  of  Church,”  253 
Dissolution  of  Relation  by  South- 
ern Convention,  VII,  XI,  69,  87, 
106,  no,  169;  effect  of,  87 


400 


INDEX 


Disunion,  103 

Divided  themselves,  VII,  XI,  69, 
106 

Divided,  Was  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church?  VII,  XI,  119 
Division,  5-7,  103 ; responsibility 
for,  VII,  XI,  68,  69,  106 
Divisions  have  advantages,  384 
Doggett,  Bishop,  202 
Dorsey,  Dennis  B.,  IV,  21,  32 
Dreisbach,  John,  375 
Drinkhouse,  Dr.  Edward  J.,  40, 
43,  44,  50,  153,  157,  158,  160, 
161,  190,  198;  History  by,  153 
Duncan,  Dr.  James  A.,  210,  214, 

215 

Duty  of  Churches  in  matter  of 
Union,  XXXVI,  391-393 
Duty  of  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  South,  XIII,  137 

Early,  John,  53 
Early  withdrawals,  II,  15-17 
Ecumenical  Conferences,  XXIII, 
236,  244 

Emancipation  of  slaves,  X,  96 
Embury,  Philip,  18 
Emergency,  Meeting,  VII,  XI, 

105 

Emory,  Dr.  John,  III,  IV,  21,  32, 
33  ; paper  by,  32,  33 
Episcopacy,  Slaveholding  in,  VII 
Episcopacy,  Wesleyan  idea  of,  362 
Episcopal  Address  to  General  Con- 
ference of  1864,  97 
Episcopal  Church,  I ; Protestant, 
XVII,  170 

Episcopal  Methodists,  I,  XXVI, 
XXXII ; Colored,  XXXII 
Eric,  148 

Evangelical  Association,  XXXIII, 
17 334»  370-375 
Evangelical  Association,  disrup- 
tion, 376  ; causes  of,  376 
Evangelical  Church,  United, 
XXXIII,  333,  375-376 
Evangelical  Reformed  Church, 
The,  360,  365 

Evans,  Rev.  James  E.,  154,  244 
Events  following  Church  South 
organization,  IX,  87-93 


Expelled  persons,  IV,  31,  32; 
restoration  of,  IV,  33 

Facts  and  Figures,  395 
Fancher,  Judge  Enoch  L.,  223 
Federal,  new  word,  322 
Federal  Council,  XXX,  321-327; 

impracticable,  326,  327 
Federated  Council  of  Bishops, 
XXXII 

Federation,  XXVI,  XXVII,  XXX, 
287,  288,  304,  306,  321  ; disap- 
pointing, 306 ; attempts  at, 
XXVI,  287-303  ; out  of  South, 
289,  291,  292;  between  Method- 
ist Episcopal  and  Church  South, 
XXVI ; not  unity,  289,  304 ; 
spirit  of,  339 

Federation,  Commissions  on, 
XXVI ; attempt  too  much,  308  ; 
joint,  XXVI,  322,  328;  in  prac- 
tice, XXVII,  304-308  ; do  not 
prevent  friction,  XXVII,  305, 
306,  308 

Finley,  Rev.  J.  B.,  VII,  6l  ; sub- 
stitute of,  61 

Finney,  Thomas  M.,  223 
Fisk,  General  Clinton  B,,  202,  223 
Foreign  Conferences,  Status  of, 
III,  XXIX,  21,22 
Foreign  Missions,  Status  of.  III, 
XXIX,  22,  23 

Foreign  country.  Independence  in, 
III,  XXIX,  22,  320 
Foreign  country.  Separation  in, 
III,  XXIX,  20,  314 
Foreign  territory,  III,  XXIX,  318; 

status  of,  18-29,  318,  320 
Foster,  Bishop  Randolph  S., 
XXIII,  XXIV,  244,  250,  251 
Fowler,  Bishop  Charles  H.,  201, 
244 

Fraternal  addresses,  XXI,  XXIII 
Fraternal  advances,  XXI,  199-218 
Fraternal  delegate,  VIII,  73,  75, 
201 

Fraternal  messengers,  188,  192 
Fraternal  relations,  76,  78,  84,  85 
Fraternity,  VIII,  XXI,  XXIII, 
72,  199,  200,  218,  288,  321; 
spirit  of,  391-393 


INDEX 


401 


Fraternity  complete,  230,  231 
Fraternity  in  Conferences,  XXI 
Frederick  City,  364 
Free  Speech,  IV,  32,  33 
Fuller,  Dr.  Erasmus  Q.,  223,  253, 
254.  255 

Garland,  Dr.  L.  C.,  210,  216, 217 
Garrettson,  Freeborn,  361 
Garrison,  William  Lloyd,  VI,  51 
General  Conference,  Methodist 
Episcopal,  VII ; action  in  case  of 
Canada,  22-29 ; actions  of  not 
final,  1 19,  120;  greatly  limited 
after  1808,  118;  limited  power 
of,  116-119;  no  power  to  destroy 
Church,  in  whole  or  part,  102 ; 
power  over  foreign  territory,  22- 

24 

General  Conference  of  1784,  118 
General  Conference  of  1808,  made 
new  Constitution,  118,  119 
General  Conference  of  1836,  52-55 
General  Conference  of  1840,  55 
General  Conference  of  1844,  60, 
61  ; action  of,  61  ; did  not 
divide  Church,  loi,  102,  119; 
did  not  turn  over  all  South  to 
Church  South,  loi ; different 
kind  from  1784,  118;  members 
surviving  in  1884,  244 
General  Conference  of  1848,  XI, 
71-76;  actions  in  regard  to 
Doctor  Pierce,  75 ; action  on 
Doctor  Pierce’s  letters,  75,  76 ; 
complaints  before,  76,  91  ; de- 
clared actions  of  1844  null  and 
void,  121  ; repudiated  actions 
and  asserted  actions  of  1844, 
I 20- I 22 

General  Conference  of  1864,  97  ; 
action  of,  97  ; Bishop’s  address 
to,  97 

General  Conference  of  1868,  de- 
liverance on  union  and  disunion, 
172 

General  Conference,  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  71 
General  Conference  of  1846,  71 
General  Conference  of  1866,  149 ; 
repudiates  line  and  limits,  201 


General  Conference  of  1874,  202  ; 

address  to,  174;  action  of,  175 
General  Conference,  Methodist 
Protestant,  34,  43,  44,  47,  48 
General  rules  on  slavery,  56 
Genesee  Conference,  III,  46 
Geographical  barrier.  No,  305 
Geographical  line.  No,  292,  305, 
306 

Geographical  sections,  330 
George,  Rev.  Augustus  C.,  239,  240 
Georgia-Alabama  Movement,  98 
German- American  Methodism, 
XXXIII,  357-377 
Germans,  Pennsylvania,  357 
German  Reformed  Church,  358, 

365 

German  work  in  Texas,  XXVI 
Great  Britain,  19 

Hammit,  Rev.  William,  15 
Harbaugh,  Doctor,  365 
Hargrove,  Dr.  Robert  K.,  223 
Harris,  Dr.  and  Bishop  W.  L., 
173,  223 

Harrison,  Dr.  W.  P.,  XXIV,  258, 

259 

Haven,  Gilbert,  17 1 
Hawkins,  Prof.  J.  R.,  340 
Heck,  18 

Hedding,  Bishop  Elijah,  52 
Hering,  Hon.  J.  W.,  284,  285 
Honda,  Bishop  Y.,  316 
Horton,  Jotham,  57 
Hoss,  Dr.  E.  E.,  247,  248,  275 
Hunt,  Dr.  Albert  S.,  201,  245 
Hunter,  Rev.  Andrew,  244 
Hunter,  Dr.  William,  192 
Hymnal,  Common,  343 
Hypes,  Dr.  W.  L.,  244 

Immigration  into  South,  140 
Independence  of  Canada,  III,  18- 
29 

Independence  of  Japan,  XXIX, 

3” 

Independence  possible  in  foreign 
country.  III,  XIX,  320 
Independence,  Impulse  towards, 
335 


402 


INDEX 


Independence,  Reasons  for,  353, 

354 

Index,  397 
Indianapolis,  376 

Jackson,  Judge,  203 
Janes,  Bishop  Edmund  S.,  165, 
166,  173,  191,  202,  21 1,  223 
Japan,  independence,  XXIX,  31 1, 
313,  315,  316  ; mission  work  in, 
31 1 ; parallel  case  with  Canada, 
318,  319  ; petition  for  autonomy, 
311,  312,  314;  principles  in- 
volved, 317-320 ; unification, 
XXIX,  3 1 1-320 

Joint  Commission’s  report,  XXXI 
Jurisdiction  dissolved,  VII,  XI 
Jurisdiction,  Quadrennial,  330 
Justice  of  Court  in  error,  XI,  117- 
121 

Kantoku,  316 

Keener,  Dr.  John  C.,  1 75  ; elected 
Bishop,  177 
Kemp,  Peter,  364 
Kenney,  Dr.  Wesley,  188 
Kilgo,  Dr.  John  C.,  275 
Kleinfeltersville,  374 

Laity,  IV,  30 
Lay  delegation,  IV,  30 
Law  of  demand  and  supply,  383 
Lee,  Dr.  L.  M.,  154 
Letters  from  Doctor  Pierce,  73-75f 
79 

Lewis,  Dr.  T.  H.,  284-286 
Limitations  on  South,  self-imposed, 
262 

Lincoln,  President,  96 
Line  of  division,  113,  262,  292 
Line  of  separation,  so-called,  XI, 
1 1 1- 1 24;  disregarded,  122;  no 
geographical,  262,  292,  305, 

306 ; no  such,  262 ; not  Mason 
and  Dixon’s,  ill;  obliterated, 
122-125 

Local  preachers,  30 
Losee,  Rev.  William,  18 
Louisville,  106,  iio,  168 
Lovely  Lane  Chapel,  361 


Lynchburg,  48,  188,  I92 

Maclay,  Dr.  R.  S.,  311 
Majority,  376 

Mason  and  Dixon’s  Line,  XI,  69, 
III;  not  line  of  separation,  69, 

III 

Matlack,  Dr.  Lucius  C.,  57 
Mattison,  Dr.  Hiram,  161,  162 
McCaine,  Alexander,  44,  45 
McDonald,  J.  F.,  341 
McFerrin,  Rev.  J.  B.,  243,  244 
McTyeire,  Bishop  Holland  N.,  94, 
i53»  154,  179-181,  212,  336 
Mennonites,  359,  360 
Merrill,  Bishop  Stephen  M.,  188, 
242,  260-263 

Methodism,  American,  5,  6 ; influ- 
ence of,  5,  6 ; unification  of,  7 
Methodist  Church,  The,  formation, 
161-164;  meeting  in  Baltimore, 
194,  195  ; union  with  Methodist 
Protestants,  187-198;  united 
procession,  196 

Methodists,  Episcopal,  14;  Chris- 
tian Church,  16;  Colored,  180; 
Primitive,  15;  Protestant,  34; 
Republican,  15  ; Reformed,  58; 
Wesleyan,  56 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  14 ; 
aids  the  South,  95-97  ; cannot 
abandon  South,  200 ; colored 
work  in  South,  131,  132;  did 
not  divide  itself,  101-107  ; efforts 
for  union,  144;  for  whole  coun- 
try, 126;  in  America,  14,  100; 
in  foreign  lands,  20;  in  the 
South  after  1844  1845,  127- 

136;  in  the  United  States,  14, 
100  ; never  out  of  South,  69,  72 ; 
no  Church  North,  loi  ; not  a 
branch  but  original,  88-90,  93, 
103 ; organization  of,  14,  362 ; 
present  duty  in  South,  137 ; 
remained  in  slave  territory, 
69;  remained  in  South,  69;  re- 
news activity  in  farther  South, 
94 ; results  of  work  in  South, 
127-136;  right  in  South,  99- 
126;  slavery  a barrier  to,  96; 
title  never  changed,  100;  uni- 


INDEX 


403 


fying  force,  130;  was  it  divided? 
1 16;  white  work  in  South, 
132-136 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the 
African,  i6 ; the  African  Zion, 
16;  the  British  (Colored),  in 
Canada,  186,  395  ; the  Canadian, 
III,  23,  183-186,  395  ; the  Col- 
ored, 180-182 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
VII,  64,  87,  106 ; address  to 
General  Conference  by  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Bishops  in  1870, 
174 ; against  union,  206,  208, 
210,  234;  colored  membership, 
334-336 ; commission  to  settle 
obstacles,  208,  209 ; entered  the 
North,  91 ; events  following  for- 
mation, 87-93  ; favors  fraternity, 
209  ; formation,  voluntary  act  of 
South,  231  ; not  for  organic 
unity,  209,  210;  organized,  106; 
proposed  union  with  Methodist 
Protestant  Church,  XV,  152- 
160;  reaffirms  views  on  slavery, 
207  ; reasons  against  union,  207  ; 
self-limited,  VII,  XI,  71,  100, 
262;  separated,  VII,  XI,  106; 
set  off  colored  members,  XVIII, 
I79»  334»  336 

Methodist  Protestant  Church,  30- 
34,  58 ; and  slavery,  39,  40 ; 
General  Conference  of,  34;  in- 
vited to  unite  with  Methodist 
Episcopal,  283;  on  tentative 
suggestion,  329 ; organization, 
34  ; proposed  union  with  Church 
South,  152-160;  with  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  329 ; with 
United  Brethren  Church,  333; 
separation  from,  48 ; terms  of 
union  with  South,  1 55-1 57  ; 
union  with  the  Methodist  Church, 
187-198;  withdrawal  from,  50 

Methodist  Protestant^  The^  190 

Methodist  Recorder^  The^  187, 189 ; 
The  London^  239 ; The  Western^ 

341 

Methodist  reformers,  IV,  30,  32 

**  Methodist  Union,”  Harrison’s, 

258 


Methodistic  bodies,  statistics  of,  394 
Michigan,  56 

Michigan  Conference,  44,  46 
Miles,  Bishop  W.  H.,  l8l 
Miller,  George,  375 
Minority,  354,  376 
Missionary  Society,  Methodist 
Episcopal,  aiding  Church  South, 
X 

Mobile,  338 

Modus  Vivendi^  XXII,  224,  306 
Momentous  events,  87-93 
Montgomery,  153,  154 
Moravians,  364,  365 
Morris,  Bishop  Thomas  A.,  165, 
166 

Morris,  Dr.  J.  C.,  274 
Muskingum  Conference,  46 
Mutual  Rights,  IV,  31 
Myers,  Dr.  Edward  H.,  article, 
166-168,  223,  253 

Naperville,  376 

Nashville  Convention,  XXXII,  352 

National  Union,  91-93 

Neal,  George,  18 

Need  of  South,  X 

New  Connection  Methodists  of 
Canada,  185 

New  England  Antislavery  Society, 

VI,  51 

New  England  Conference,  52 
New  Hampshire,  52 
Newman,  Dr.  John  F.,  223 
New  Orleans  Advocate ^ 289 
New  South,  141 
New  York,  16 

New  York  Conference,  18,  150, 
New  York  East  Conference,  149, 

150 

Nippon  Methodist  Kyokwai,  316 
Non-sectionalism,  140,  142,  143 
North,  no  Church,  VIII,  XI,  86, 
100 

Northern  people  in  South,  308 
Northern  withdrawal,  VI,  5 1 

Ogburn,  Rev.  T.  J.,  249 
O’Kelly,  Rev.  James,  II,  15 
Orders,  Clerical,  362,  363 


404 


INDEX 


Oregon,  291 

« Organic  Union,”  Bishop  Mer- 
rill’s, 260 

Organic  Union,  XIV,  XXIV,  XXV, 
XXVI,  XXXIV,  241,  346 
Organic  Unity,  XXXIV,  210,  339, 
345»  377»  378;  dangers  in,  381; 
difficulties  in  way  of,  XXXIV, 
XXXV,  385-390 ; federation  is 
not,  289  ; not  an  easy  task,  385  ; 
requisites  for,  383 
Otterbein,  Bishop  Philip  William, 
XXXIII,  357-368 ; assists  in 
consecration  of  Asbury,  362 ; 
death  and  burial,  368,  369 ; re- 
lation to  Asbury  and  Methodism, 

363 

Paine,  Bishop  Robert,  180 
Palatinate,  Rhenish,  357 
Pan-Methodistic  Conferences, 
XXIII,  236-252 

Pastoral  Addresses,  242,  243,  25 1, 
253 

Peck,  Bishop  Jesse  F.,  21 1 
Pending  Suggestions  of  Union, 
XXXI,  XXXII,  XXXIII,  328- 
334 

Perkins,  Hon.  G.  B.,  274 
Philadelphia,  16,  51,  361,  376 
Phillips,  Bishop  C.  H.,  341 
Pierce,  Dr.  Lovick,  VIII,  XXI, 
73»  77»  176;  courtesies  to,  77, 
78,  81  ; delegate,  73 ; delegate, 
recognized  as,  75,  76,  84  ; delay 
in  presenting  credentials,  74 ; 
difference  between  letter  and 
credentials,  79,  82 ; General 

Conference  action,  75,  76 ; let- 
ters from,  73-75,  79,  213; 
method  of  approach,  73,  74; 
recognizes  Methodist  Episcopal 
title,  86 ; fraternal  delegate, 
1876,  202,  210,  21 1,  213 
Pittsburgh,  40,  46,  187 
Plan  of  Separation,  so-called,  XI, 
82,  85,  107-112;  annulled,  120- 
122;  cancelled,  XI,  121-124; 
not  a plan  of,  262 ; null  and 
void,  85,  1 21 

Plan  for  Union,  XXVIII,  309; 


tentative,  328-334;  action  on, 

329 

Polity,  Questions  of,  30-34 
Polk,  Governor  Trusten,  203 
Pool,  William  C.,  32 
Porter,  Dr.  James,  32 
Practice,  Federation  in,  XVII 
Preachers,  Itinerant,  30;  local,  30 
Primitive  Methodists,  II,  15,  186 
Proffers  of  Union,  XIV,  XVII, 
165-178 

Property  questions,  220-222,  224, 
225 

Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  17 1 
Protestant  Methodists,  VI,  58 
Protestant  view  of  unity,  379 
Protest,  The,  from  Southern  dele- 
gates, VII,  XI,  63, 67  ; reply  to, 
VII,  63,  67,  68 

Quadrennial  General  Confer- 
ences, 34 

Quadrennial  Jurisdictional  Confer- 
ences, 330,  334,  349 
Questions  as  to  Commissions  on 
Colored  Churches,  348 

Rappahannock  River,  115,  116 
Reception  of  Old  Church  in  South, 
97»  98 

Reentering  the  Far  South,  X,  97, 98 
Reese,  Eli  Yeates,  42 
Reformed  Church,  Evangelical, 
The,  360 

Reformed  Methodists,  58 
Reformers,  VI,  30 ; associate 
Methodist,  32  ; petition  from,  32 
Reid,  Rev.  C.  F.,  247 
Reorganization,  Union  by,  XXXI 
Reorganization  is  disorganization, 

331 

Reply  to  Declaration,  XI,  104, 108, 
109 

Reply  to  Protest,  VII,  XI,  63,  67, 

68 

Republican  Methodists,  II,  16,  17 
Results  of  work  in  South,  XII, 
127-136 

Resolutions  of  Appreciation,  203 
Resolutions  from  Committee,  204, 
205 


INDEX 


405 


Resolutions  to  members  of  Con- 
ference of  1844,  244 
Return  to  Farther  South,  97 
Reunion  of  three  Churches,  328 
Reynolds,  Dr.  A.  L.,  284,  285 
Rhenish  Palatinate,  357 
Rhine  Country,  357 
Ridgaway,  Dr.  H.  B.,  244,  267- 
272 

Right  in  the  South,  X,  XI,  99 
Right  to  reenter  Farther  South,  99- 
126 

Right  in  1865,  XI,  125 
Right  in  South  not  disputed,  229 
Robinson,  James,  189 
Ryland,  Rev.  William,  367 

Saint  Louis  Meeting,  175 
Scott,  Bishop  I.  B.,  352 
Scott,  Dr.  John,  190 
Scott,  Bishop  Levi,  202 
Scott,  Orange,  53,  54,  57 
Scriptures,  Defense  of  slavery  from, 
45 

Secession  of  States  attempted,  IX, 

91 

Sectional  divisions,  331,  349 
Sectionalism,  X,  97,  140,  142,  147 
Sectionalized  Church,  No,  XXI, 
143.  265 

Sehon,  Dr.  Edmund  W.,  204 
Separation,  act  of  Southern  Confer- 
ences, VII,  XI;  foreign,  18-29; 
line  of,  XI,  1 1 i-i  16  ; long  stand- 
ing* 387  ; Methodist  Protestant, 
V,  XX,  48 ; not,  but  withdrawal, 
VII ; not  made  by  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  104,  ill; 
so-called  plan  of,  82,  85,  107- 
112 

Shinn,  Asa,  V,  40,  41,  44 
Simpson,  Bishop  Matthew,  166, 
168,  202,  236-238 
Slavery,  V,  VI,  VII,  IX,  X,  XI ; 
a barrier  in  South,  VII,  IX, 
146,  147;  abolition  of,  96; 

antislavery,  51  ; controversy, 
37 ; defense  of,  35,  36 ; defense 
of  from  Scriptures,  45  ; disci- 
pline on,  56 ; disturbing  influ- 
ence, 35-40 ; divisive  influence, 


35-40;  ecclesiastical  issue,  36, 
37  » general  conferences,  60 ; 
general  rules  on,  56  ; in  Church, 
60 ; in  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  52;  in  nation,  52;  in 
North  and  South,  35 ; Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  con- 
cessions to,  38,  39 ; Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  old  laws 
against,  38 ; Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  opposed,  38,  39 ; 
Methodist  Protestant  Church  and, 
39,  40,  43,  44;  North  against, 
5 1 ; opposition  to,  35 ; polit- 
ical issue,  36,  37  ; question  of, 
50 ; the  South  for,  V,  VII 
Slaveholding,  V,  VI,  VII,  IX; 
bishop,  VII,  60  ; in  Episcopacy, 
VII,  60 

Slave  territory,  69,  70 
Smith,  Rev.  A.  Coke,  245,  248,  249 
Smith,  Bishop  C.  S.,  241 
Smith,  Rev.  J.  J.,  197 
Societies,  Secret,  163,  369 
South  aided,  X,  95,  96 
Southgate,  Rev.  E.  L.,  249,  250 
South  in  need,  94,  95 
South,  The  ‘ Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  never  out  of  the,  IX,  X, 
88-90,  93 

South,  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  self-limited,  VII,  XI, 
71,  100 

South,  Right  in,  not  disputed,  229 
Southern  Conferences,  withdrawal, 
VII,  65 

Southern  Convention  withdraws, 
VII 

Southern  Convention  organizes  a 
Church  South,  VII 
Southern  delegates,  VII,  VIII, 
XXI ; protest  of,  VII,  XI 
Southern  withdrawal,  VII,  XI,  60 
Sovereign  power,  XI,  117,  118 
Spencer,  Peter,  II,  16 
Springfield,  Ohio,  49 
Stanton,  Henry  B,,  53 
Starr  Church*  XX,  196 
Statistics,  XXXVII,  134-136,  i8i, 
394 

Status,  of  Churches,  XXII,  231, 


406 


INDEX 


232;  of  foreign  territory,  III, 
XXIX,  317-320;  of  home  land, 

317.  318,  319 

Steel,  Dr.  Samuel  A.,  273 
Stockton,  Dr.  Thomas  H.,  42 
Substitute,  The  Finley,  VII,  6l 
Succession,  Clerical,  362,  363 ; 
double  in  American  Methodism, 
Anglican  and  Continental  Re- 
formed, 363 

Suggestions  of  Union,  XIV,  XV, 
XVII,  XIX,  XX,  XXIV,  XXV, 
XXVIII,  XXXI,  XXXII, 
XXXIII,  328-334 
Summers,  Dr.  Thomas  O.,  212 
Sunderland,  Rev.  La  Roy,  52,  57 
Superintendents  or  bishops,  362, 
3^5»  374  J Otterbein  and  Boehm 
elected,  365  ; Albright  elected, 
374  ; Asbury  elected,  362 
Supply  and  demand.  Law  of,  383 
Supreme  Court  decided  only  one 
thing,  XI,  117-121 
Supreme  Court  remarks  not  de- 
cisions, XI,  1 1 7-1 2 1 

Tentative  suggestions,  XXXI, 
328-334 ; General  Conference 
action  on,  329 

Terms  of  Union,  XV,  XXXI,  155- 
157  ; Church  South  answer  to, 
XV,  157,  158 

Thomas,  Dr.  Frank  M.,  276-278 
Thompson,  George,  53 
Tiffany,  Dr.  Otis  FI.,  240,  24 1 
Tigert,  Dr.  J.  J.,  273 
Title  of  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  never  changed,  100 
Tomlinson,  Joseph  S.,  77 
Trimble,  Rev.  Joseph  M.,  244 
Tulpehocken,  359 

Unification,  7,  329;  in  Japan, 
XXIX,  31 1-320;  of  Colored 
Episcopal  Methodism,  342,  343 
Union  American  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  16,  336,  337 
Union  among  Colored  Churches, 
XXXII 

Union,  Church  South  against,  206 
Union  of  Methodist  and  Methodist 


Protestant  Churches,  XX,  187- 
198 

“ Union  of  the  Churches,”  255 
Union,  National,  5,  6,  91-93 
Union,  Proffers  of,  XIV,  144-15 1 ; 
made  and  renewed,  XVII,  165- 
178 

Union  societies,  IV,  31 
Union  with  other  Churches,  309, 
310 

Union,  addresses  on, XXIII, XXV ; 
attempted,  of  colored  Churches, 
337»  338;  attitude  of  Church 
South  towards,  148 ; corporate, 
302;  books  on,  XXIV  ; duty  of 
Churches  in  relation  to,  XXXIV- 
XXXVI ; efforts  of  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  for,  144-15 1 ; 
efforts  renewed,  XVII,  165- 
178;  is  it  desirable?  XXXIV, 
378-384 ; not  abstract  but  con- 
crete, 378 ; of  the  Methodist 
and  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Churches,  XX,  187-198  ; pend- 
ing suggestions  for,  XXXI,  338- 
339;  plan  for,  XXVIII ;»  pro- 
posed, between  Church  South 
and  Methodist  Protestant  Church, 
XV,  152-160;  reasons  for  and 
against,  380-381  ; suggestions 
of,  328-334 
Unitas  Fratrum,  364 
United  Brethren  in  Christ,  XXXIII, 
363,  370;  rules  and  doctrines, 
364;  (Old  Constitution), 
XXXIII,  368-370 ; proposed 
union  with  Methodist  Protestants, 
333 

United  Episcopal  Methodist  Church 
in  Africa,  342 

United  Evangelical  Church, 
XXXIII,  375,  376  organized, 
377 

“ United  ministers,”  360 
United  States  of  America,  14,  361 ; 

Church  in,  14,  319 
Unity,  more  than  one  kind,  378, 
379 

Unity,  Organic,  210,  241,  303,  339, 
345»  346,  377*378;  advantages 
of,  XXXIV;  dangers  o^ 


INDEX  407 


XXXTV,  381;  difficulties  of, 
XXXIV,  XXXV,  281,  385  ; too 
much  expected  from,  382  j will 
not  remedy  all  evils,  382 
Upper  Canada,  18-20,  183,  184 
Utica  Convention,  57 

Vance,  Robert  B.,  223 
Vasey,  Thomas,  362 
Virginia,  115,  116 

Walden,  Bishop  John  M.,  244 
Walter,  John,  375 
Walters,  Bishop  A.,  341 
War,  Civil,  IX,  92,  190 
War  of  1812-1814,  19 
Warren,  Bishop  Henry  W.,  282, 
285,  286 

Washington,  244,  291,  338,  344 
Wesley,  John,  5,  13,  14,  358,  359, 
361,  362,  365 
Wesleyanism,  13,  14 
Wesleyan  Connection,  241 
Wesleyan  Methodism,  13 
Wesleyan  Methodists,  56 ; in  Can- 
ada, 241 

Wesleyan  Methodist  Connection  of 
America,  VI,  57,  59,  60;  or- 
ganized, 57 

Wesleyan  societies,  I,  14,  361 ; re- 
organization in  America,  14, 361 


Wesleyans,  British,  in  Canada,  183, 
184 

West  Virginia,  89,  98 
Whatcoat,  Richard,  362 
Whedon,  Dr.  D.  A.,  217 
Whedon,  Dr.  D.  D.,  255 
Whittier,  John  Greenleaf,  5 1,  53 
Wilmington,  16 

Withdrawal,  a Northern,  VI,  5 1, 

57. 58 

Withdrawal  of  Conferences,  VII 
Withdrawal  of  Primitives,  15 
Withdrawal  of  Republican  Meth- 
odists, 16,  17 

Withdrawal  of  Southern  Confer- 
ences, own  act  solely,  VII,  XI 
Withdrawal  on  polity,  IV,  34 
Withdrawal,  The  Southern,  VII, 
60,  65,  66 ; caused  by  slavery, 
65,  66 

Withdrawals,  Canadian,  III ; col- 
ored, II ; early,  II,  15-17 
WitnesSy  The  Christiatty  40 
Worship,  common  order,  XXVI, 
XXXII,  297, 338 


Yeakel,  Dr.  R.,  375 

Zion,  African  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  II,  XXXII, 
i7»  17 1.  335»  336-338,  343»  344, 
345 


printed  in  the  united  states  of  AMERICA 


HOMILETICS  AND  CHURCH  WORK 


CHARLES  SILVESTER  HORNE  Yale  Lectures  on 

~ Preachinz 

The  Romance  of  Preaching 

With  an  Introduction  by  Charles  R.  Brown,  D.D., 
Dean  of  Yale  Divinity  School,  and  a Biographical 
Sketch  by  H.  A.  Bridgman,  Editor  of  The  Congre- 
gationalist.  With  Portrait.  i2mo,  cloth,  net  $1.25. 

“From  the  days  when  Henry  Ward  Beecher  gave  the  first 
series  of  lectures  on  the  Lyman  Beecher  Foundation  in  Yale 
University  . . the  task  of  inspiring  young  ministers  to 
nobler  effort  in  their  high  calling,  has  been  well  performed. 
But  among  all  the  lecturers  few  have  ever  sO’  gripped  the 
divinity  students,  the  larger  audience  of  pastors  in  active 
service,  as  did  Silvester  Horne.  The  intellectual  distinction 
whioli  marked  his  utterances,  the  fine  literary  form  in  which 
they  ware  phrased,  the  moral  passion  which  gave  to  their 
delivery  that  energy  which  belongs  to  words  which  are  ‘spirit 
and  life,’  together  with  the  rare  spiritual  insight  displayed 
all  combined  to  make  notable  the  service  rendered  by  Mr. 
Horne  to  Yale  University.” — Charles  R.  Brown,  D.D.,  Dean 
of  Yale  Divinity  School. 

The  last  message  of  a leader  of  men. 

BISHOP  THOMAS  B.  NEELY,  Of  the  Methodist^ 

^ Episcopal  Church 

The  Minister  in  the  Itinerant  System 

i2mo,  cloth,  net  $1.00. 

“Bishop  Neely  discusses  frankly  the  fact  that  large  num- 
ber* of  strong  men  eagerly  accept  official  service,  leaving  the 
intinerant  pastorate.  He  states  the  system  itself  briefly,  but 
the  burden  of  the  book  is  a full  discussion  of  the  bearing  of 
it  all  on  the  minister  himself.  It  was  to  be  presumed  of 
course  that  a Methodist  bishop  would  conclude  that  ‘the  sys- 
tem should  be  maintained’  and  even  that  ‘the  appointing 
power  should  be  untrammelled’;  but  it  is  none  the  less  in- 
teresting to  follow  the  argument.  We  do  not  know  any  other 
book  which  states  the  whole  case  with  such  eminent  fair- 
ness.”— The  Continent. 

EDMUND  S.  LORENZ,  B.  D. 

Practical  Church  Music 

A Discussion  of  Purpose,  Methods  and  Plans.  New 
Popular  Edition.  i2mo,  cloth,  net  $1.00. 

“Mr.  Lorenz  has  had  thirty  years’  active  experience  with 
both  the  theoretical  and  practical  sides  of  church  music  in 
all  its  forms.  This  is  one  of  the  most  practical  books  on  the 
subject  of  church  music  we  have  ever  read.  Every  page  is 
suggestive  and  every  suggestion  is  eminently  practical.  The 
book  closes  with  a worthy  appendix  dealing  with  musical  and 
hymnological  books  worth  owning,  choice  church  music  for 
choir  and  solo  use,  and  suggestive  outlines  and  subjects  for 
song  sermons  and  song  services,” — Advance. 


DEVOTIONAL 


JOHN  HENRY  JOWETT 

My  Daily  Meditation  for  the  circling  Year 
i2mo,  cloth,  net  $1.25. 

A series  of  choice,  tabloid  talks — a spiritual  meditation 
for  every  day  in  the  year.  Dr.  Jowett  peints  every  word  of 
these  brief  expositions  so  that  it  tells,  while  the  lessons  he 
seeks  to  convey  are  so  propounded  as  to  enter  the  under- 
standing of  his  readers  along  a pathway  of  light.  The  whole 
volume  is  of  true  mintage,  bearing  the  impress  of  Dr.  Jowett’s 
ripest  thought  and  fruitful  mind. 

S,  D.  GORDON 

Quiet  Talks  About  the  Crowned  Chri^ 

i2mo,  cloth,  net  75c. 

After  many  years’  study  of  the  one  book  of  the  Bible 
devoted  to  the  subject  of  tne  crowned  Christ — the  Revelation 
of  John — Mr.  Gordon  has  put  these  latest  talks  together.  No 
book  of  the  sixty-six  has  seemed  so  much  like  a riddle,  and 
set  so  many  guessing.  Mr.  Gordon,  however,  holds  the  deep 
conviction  that  it  is  wholly  a practical  book,  and  concerned 
wholly  with  our  practical  daily  lives. 

F.  B.  MEYER,  B.J. 

My  Daily  Prayer 

A Short  Supplication  for  Every  Day  in  the  Year. 
32mo,  leather,  net  35c;  cloth,  net  25c. 

“This  is  a tiny  volume,  in  the  ‘Yet  Another  Day’  series, 
and  contains  a brief  prayer  for  each  day  in  the  year.  Some 
of  the  petitions  contain  only  one  sentence,  but  each  one  is 
simple,  pertinent,  and  helpful.” — Zion’s  Herald. 

GEORGE  MATHESON 

Day  Unto  Day 

A Brief  Prayer  for  Every  Day.  New  Bdition. 
i6mo,  cloth,  net  500. 

These  choice  prayers  will  be  valued  by  the  Christian 
world  for  the  stimulus,  inspiration,  and  wide  spiritual  out- 
look which  have  made  the  memory  of  their  author  a cher- 
ished possession. 

HENRY  JVARD  BEECHER 

A Book  of  Public  Prayer 

'l2mo,  cloth,  net  75c. 

“A  distinct  addition  to  our  devotional  literature.  It  is  good 
for  private  reading;  but  would  be  especially  valuable  for 
ministers  as  an  aid  to  the  difficult,  but  immensely  important, 
service  of  voicing  the  petitions  of  a congregation  in  public 
prayer.” — Standard. 


SERMONS— LECTURES— ADDRESSES 


JAMES  L.  GORDON y D.D. 

Airs  Love  Yet  All’s  Law 

i2mo,  cloth,  net  $1.25. 

“Discloses  the  secret  of  Dr.  Gordon’s  eloquence — fresh, 
and  intimate  presentations  of  truth  which  always  keep  close 
to  reality.  Dr.  Gordon  also  seems  to  have  the  world’s  litera- 
ture at  his  command.  A few  of  the  titles  will  give  an  idea 
«f  the  scope  of  his  preaching.  ‘The  Daw  of  Truth:  The 
Science  of  Universal  Relationships’;  ‘The  Daw  of  Inspiration; 
The  Vitalizing  Power  of  Truth’;  ‘The  Daw  of  Vibration’; 
‘The  Daw  of  Beauty:  The  Spiritualizing  Power  of  Thought’; 
The  Soul’s  Guarantee  of  Immortality.” — Christian  Work. 
BISHOP  JRANCIS  J,  McCONNELL  Cole  Lectures 

K Personal  Christianity 

Instruments  and  Ends  in  the  Kingdom  of  God. 
i2mo,  cloth,  net  $1.25. 

The  latest  volume  of  the  famous  “Cole  Dectures”  delivered 
at  Vanderbilt  University.  The  subjects  are:  I.  Ihe  Per- 
sonal in  Christianity.  II.  The  Instrumental  in  Christianity. 
III.  The  Mastery  of  World-Views.  IV.  The  Invigoration 
of  Morality.  V.  The  Control  of  Social  Advance.  VI. 
“Every  Kindred,  and  People,  and  Tongue.” 

NEWELE  DWIGHT  HILLIS,  D.D. 

Lectures  and  Orations  by  Henry  Ward 
Beecher 

Collected  by  Newell  Dwight  Hillis.  i2mo,  net  $1.20. 

It  is  fitting  that  one  who  is  noted  for  the  grace,  finish  and 
eloquence  of  his  own  addresses  should  choose  those  of  his 
predecessor  which  he  deems  worthy  to  be  preserved  in  a 
bound  volume  as  the  most  desirable,  the  most  characteristic 
and  the  most  dynamic  utterances  of  America’s  greatest  pulpit 
orator. 

JV.  L.  WATKINSON,  D.D. 

The  Moral  Paradoxes  of  St.  Paul 

i2mo,  cloth,  net  $1.00. 

“These  sermons  are  marked,  even  to  greater  degree  than 
is  usual  with  their  talented  preacher,  by  clearness,  force  and 
illustrative  aptness.  He  penetrates  unerringly  to  the  heart 
of  Paul’s  paradoxical  settings  forth  of  great  truths,  and  il- 
lumines them  with  pointed  comment  and  telling  illustration. 
The  sermons  while  thoroughly  practical  are  garbed  in  strik- 
ing and  eloquent  sentences,  terse,  nervous,  attention-com- 
pelling.”— Christian  World. 

LEN  G.  BROUGHTON,  D.D. 

The  Prodigal  and  Others 

i2mo,  cloth,  net  $1.00. 

“The  discourses  are  vital,  bright,  interesting  and  helpful. 
It  makes  a preacher  feel  like  preaching  once  more  on  this 
exhaustless  parable,  and  will  prove  helpful  to  all  young  people 
— and  older  ones,  too.  Dr.  Broughton  does  not  hesitate  to 
make  his  utterances  striking  and  entertaining  by  the  intro- 
duction of  numerous  appropriate  and  homely  stories  and  illus- 
trations- He  reaches  the  heart.”— and  Expositor, 


ESSAYS  AND  STUDIES 


JOSEPH  FOR  T NE  WTON  Author  of  “ The  Eternal 

- . ■ Christ,”  "David  Svoing” 

What  Have  the  Saints  to  Teach  Us? 

A Message  from  the  Church  of  the  Past  to  the 
Church  of  To-day.  i2mo,  cloth,  net  Soc. 

“Of  that  prof®under  life  of  faith  and  prayer  and  vision 
which  issues  in  deeds  of  daring  excellence,  the  Pilgrims  of 
the  Mystic  Way  are  the  leaders  and  guides;  and  there  is 
much  m our  time  which  invites  their  leadership.” — Preface. 

JOHN  BALCOM  SHAfF,  D.D. 

The  Angel  in  the  Sun 

Glimpses  of  the  Light  Eternal.  Cloth,  net  $i.oo. 

Dr.  Shaw  has  prepared  a series  of  spirited  addresses 
marked  throughout  by  sincerity  and  fine  feeling,  and  free 
of  all  philosophical  surmise,  or  theological  cavil.  “The  Angel 
In  The  Sun”  is  a refreshing  and  enheartening  book;  the 
cheery  word  of  a man  of  unswerving  faith  to  his  compan- 
ions by  the  way. 

PHILIP  MAURO 

Looking  for  the  Saviour 

i2mo,  cloth,  net  35c.;  paper,  20c. 

The  first  part  of  this  little  volume  is  devoted  to  an  exami- 
nation of  the  chief  rea^ns  that  have  been  advanced  in  sup- 
port of  the  post-tribulation  view  of  the  Rapture  of  the  Saints. 
The  second  part  contains  some  affirmative  teaching  relating 
to  the  general  subject  of  the  Lord’s  return. 

PROF.  LEE  R.  SCARBOROUGH 

Recruits  for  World  Conquers 

i2mo,  cloth,  net  75c. 

“Here  is  a soul-stirring  message,  presenting  the  call  and  th« 
need  and  the  response  we  should  make.  The  author  is  deeply 
spiritual,  wise,  earnest  and  conservative  in  presenting  his  ap- 
peal.— Word  and  Way. 

PRINCIPAL  ALEXANDER  WHYTE,  D.  D. 

Thirteen  Appreciations 

i2mo,  cloth,  net  $1.50. 

Appreciations  of  Santa  Teresa,  Jacob  Boehme,  Bishop  An- 
drews, Samuel  Rutherford,  Thomas  Shepard,  Thomas  Good- 
win, Sir  Thomas  Browne,  William  Law,  James  Fraser  of 
Brea,  Bishop  Butler,  Cardinal  Newman,  William  Guthrie  and 
John  Wesley,  go  to  the  making  of  Dr.  Whyte’s  new  book,  a 
work  of  hign  authority,  revealing  on  every  page  the  man  who 
wrote  it. 


CHURCH  WORK 


HARRY  F.  fFARD 

A Year  Book  of  the  Church  and  Social 
Service  in  the  United  States 

Prepared  for  The  Commission  on  the  Church  and 
Social  Service,  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of 
Christ  in  America.  i2mo,  paper,  net  30c.;  cloth, 
net  soc. 

ERNEST  EUGENE  ELLIOTT 

The  Problem  of  Lay  Leadership 

A Companion  to  ‘'Making  Good  In  The  Local 
Church.”  i2mo,  cloth,  net  50c. 

“What  Christian  ideal  should  guide  our  men’s  work?” 
“What  methods  may  we  safely  use  in  realizing  it?”  “What 
must  we  do?”  “What  must  we  undo?”  These  are  some  of 
the  problems  pressing  insistently  on  the  minds  and  hearts  of 
rninisters  and  religious  leaders  of  the  present  day.  This 
timely  book  of  Mr.  Elliott’s  suggests  some  eminently  workable 
methods  of  awakening  the  interest  of  men,  some  lines  of 
study  by  which  it,  is  hoped,  they  may  advance  materially  in 
the  knowledge  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  together  with  some 
“pointers”  for  such  as  may  asi^ire  to  leadership.  The  pro- 
grams suggested  are  not  theoretical.  All  have  been  tried,  in 
whole  or  in  part,  in  some  local  church  with  profit  and  success. 

HARLAN  L.  FEEMAN  Prof,  of  Practical  Theolozy  West- 
~ — ' minster  Theological  Seminary 

The  Kingdom  and  the  Farm 

The  Problem  of  the  Country  Church.  Cloth,  net  75c. 

In  compact  form  this  timely  book  presents  the  problem  of 
the  country  church  and  its  attendant  difficulty.  Dr.  Feeman 
was  born  on  a farmj  knows  his  subject  well  and  writes  with 
precision  and  authority.  His  suggestions  have  vision,  breadth 
and  sanity  and  offer  a real  scientific  study  of  this  vastly  im- 
portant subject. 

D.  C.  TREMAINE 

Church  Efficiency 

A Study  of  Methods.  i6mo,  cloth,  net  SOc. 

A plan  of  procedure  whereby  methods  of  business  efficiency 
may  be  applied  to  the  work  or  the  church.  Mr.  Tremaine  is 
a layman  and  what  he  here  presents  is  the  result  of  special 
and  careful  study.  Most  of  his  suggestions  have  already 
been  adopted  and  none  are  submitted  untried.  The  con- 
clusions are  calculated  to  help  lift  the  burdens  of  pastors, 
and  in  solving  some  of  the  problems  of  church  life  and  ac- 
tivity. 


EARLIER  WORKS  IN  DEMAND 


WAYNE  WHIPPLE 

The  Story-Life  of  the  Son  of  Man 

8vo,  illustrated,  net  $2.50. 

“A  literary  mosaic,  consisting  of  quotations  from  a great 
number  of  writers  concerning  all  the  events  of  the  Gospels. 
The  sub-title  accurately  describes  its  contents.  That  sub- 
title is  ‘Nearly  a thousand  stories  from  sacred  and  secular 
sources  in  a continuous  and  complete  chronicle  of  the  earth 
life  of  the  Saviour.’  The  book  \vas  prepared  for  the  general 
reader,  but  will  be  valuable  to  minister,  teacher  and  student. 
There  are  many  full-page  engravings  from  historic  paintings 
and  sacred  originals,  some  reproduced  for  the  first  time.” — 
Christian  Observer. 

GAIUS  GLENN  ATKINS,  D.D. 

Pilgrims  of  the  Lonely  Road 

i2mo,  cloth,  net  $1.50. 

‘‘A  rare  book  for  its  style,  its  theme  and  the  richness  of 
its  insight.  Seldom  is  seen  a book  of  more  exquisite  grace 
of  diction — happy  surprises  of  phrase,  and  lovely  lengths  of 
haunting  prose  to  delight  the  eye.  Each  of  the  great  pil- 
grim’s studies  is  followed  step  by  step  along  the  lonely  way 
of  the  soul  in  its  quest  of  light,  toward  the  common  goal  of 
all — union  with  the  eternal.” — Chicago  Record-Herald. 

S.  D.  GORDON 

Quiet  Talks  on  Following  The  Chri^ 

i2mo,  cloth,  net  75c. 

“This  volume  is  well  calculated  to  aid  in  Christian  life,  to 
give  strength,  courage  and  light  on  difficult  problems.  It 
grips  one’s  very  life,  brings  one  face  to  face  with  God’s 
word,  ways  of  understanding  it  and,  even  its  every  day  ap- 
plication. It  is  plain,  clear,  direct,  no  confusion  of  dark 
sentences.” — Bapt.  Observer. 

G.  CAMPBELL  MORGAN,  D.D. 

The  Teaching  of  Chri^ 

A Companion  Volume  to  “The  Crises  of  The 
Christ.”  8vo,  cloth,  net  $1.50. 

“One  does  not  read  far  before  he  is  amazed  at  the  clear  and 
logical  grasp  Dr.  Morgan  has  upon  divine  truths.  Could  a 
copy  of  this  book,  with  its  marvelous  insight,  its  straightfor- 
wardness, its  masterly  appeal,  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  our 
church  leaders,  it  would  go  far  toward  negativing  the  spir- 
itual barrenness  of  destructive  criticism.  Here  is  a work 
that  may  profitably  occupy  a prominent  place  in  the  minister’s 
library.” — Augsburg  Teacher. 

ZEPHINE  HUMPHREY 

The  Edge  of  the  Woods  And  Other  Papers 

i2mo,  cloth,  net  $1.25. 

“Sane  optimism,  an  appreciation  of  the  beautiful  and  a 
delicate  humor  pervades  the  book  which  is  one  for  lovers  of 
real  literature  to  enjoy.” — Pittsburgh  Post. 


* • V ■ 


f 


V 


» , 


I 


j 


V.- 


' ’*  '- 


/ 


t- 


r*  .1 


u 


r* 


I 


